In one of the studies referenced in the analysis (Steiner et al. ), three conditions were evaluated: a neurofeedback group, a cognitive training group, and a waiting list group. Sonuga-Barke et al. (1) stated that they selected control conditions “in the following order: sham/placebo, attention/active control, treatment as usual, waiting list.” However, they calculated the standardized mean difference for the Steiner et al. study against the waiting list, whereas they should have calculated it against the cognitive training condition. The null hypothesis for such a meta-analysis should be that all conditions have no effect; thus, interpreting the cognitive training as an “active ADHD treatment” (E.J. Sonuga-Barke, personal communication, February 2013) for one study but not for another study is inconsistent. Furthermore, the Steiner et al. study reported that 30% of patients in the neurofeedback and cognitive training conditions reduced their medication, whereas none of the individuals in the waiting list did, making a comparison against the waiting list group even more problematic. Therefore, Sonuga-Barke et al. should have compared the neurofeedback group with the cognitive training group.