The strength of the body of evidence increases with the quality of the systematic review, the number of unique primary research studies included in the evidence synthesis, and the consistency of the findings. [...] This increase in the number of systematic reviews is indicative of the increased interest in the topic, as well as a diversification in the study of potential interventions. [...] The first is an update to the original report, consisting of summaries of the evidence synthesis on interventions discussed in the original report, organized by intervention as they were in the original report. [...] Differences in variables, such as the design of the MT intervention, and the frequency and the duration of intervention exposure, may be expected to produce different estimates of effect size. [...] The differing conclusions of the review literature make it difficult to assess the strength of the body of evidence, which is most accurately labelled as inconsistent and “Very Weak.” The conclusion of the most recent, high-quality Cochrane Review is that MT is not more effective than usual care represents a significant caution (12).