::Given that I filed the most recent DRN about this issue - and at the risk of incurring the wrath of all the editors who have taken part in previous iterations of the dispute - may I say that I too was slightly surprised at the speed with which it was closed. I think that the conclusion that  stated was largely inevitable and I agree with it; but, I for one would have welcomed a closer focus on what I saw as the central flaw in CartoonDiablo's table, since I believe that that flaw goes to much more profound questions of epistemology than were addressed in the debates, namely: 1) the proper status and interpretation of meta-analyses, and 2) the interpretation of 'absence of evidence'.  
 ::While not having any great formal expertise on these issues (which is why I did suggest obtaining an opinion from someone with expertise in scientific research in general, rather than from someone within the clinical sphere, who would, apparently, likely have some bias one way or another in the CBT vs psychodynamic wars), can I say - for what it's worth - that I think that CartoonDiablo fell into error on a couple of fundamental points: Firstly, he greatly over-rated the significance of meta-analyses generally, apparently believing that quantity of studies included in the meta-analysis was in itself a measure of merit, whereas in fact the particular methodology used is very significant, and systematic error and bias are not always easily discernible in such studies: the article on Meta-analysis describes some of these disadvantages and weaknesses. 
 ::Secondly, he interpreted the 'holes/absences/silences' in the French study as grounds for making a positive assertion, ie, "No effect". This is an error and a fundamental problem in epistemology: Argument from ignorance#Distinguishing absence of evidence from evidence of absence|Distinguishing absence of evidence from evidence of absence''. 
 ::Given that the logical conclusion flowing from the sum total of disputes about this issue would appear to be that there are strong grounds for removal of the table from all of the articles, I would have liked to have seen a bit more thorough analysis and discussion on the specific points I raised. I'm not necessarily asking for the dispute to be reopened, but I think it could have been concluded a bit more satisfactorily.