Reply by the current author to the comments made by Andrew James Amos et al. (see record 2014-09375-015) and Antonio Preti et al. (see record 2014-09375-016) on the original article (see record 2013-26281-001). The letters of Amos et al. and Preti et al. provide with the opportunity to rebut some of their criticisms and to further clarify the design and outcome of meta-analysis of randomized trials in the prevention of first psychosis. In his criticism of meta-analysis, Amos relies on the arguments of the pre meta-analysis era: this can be characterized as "vote counting". Vote counting concludes that if most individual studies do not find statistically significant results, then there is no effect. studies. The Button paper referred to by Amos states that publication bias and low quality of the primary studies may inflate true effect-sizes in meta-analysis. This is correct and therefore the authors evaluated and reported the impact of publication bias and study quality on their meta-analytic outcomes. If Dr Amos can agree with the scientific community that p-values of individual trials are less important in demonstrating risk reduction in rare disorders and that risk reduction is the key focus in preventing rare diseases, then he should also agree that meta-analysis is an appropriate method to pool the available evidence.