Evidence-based medicine has elevated meta-analyses to the status of key parameter in medical decision-making (Sigman, 2011; Humaidan & Polyzos, 2012; Walker et al., 2008). Every year, over 6,000 meta-analyses are published in medical journals and submitted to the appreciation of physicians, who then have to analyze their conclusions and use them to support medical decisions. ART does not escape this rule, and meta-analyses concerning topics ripe with controversy – PGS (Preimplantation Genetic Screening), GnRH agonists vs. GnRH antagonists, endometrial injury, androgen therapy for women with poor ovarian response, etc. – are frequently published. On the other hand, some meta-analyzes have conclusions that periodically change with the addition of only one new prospective randomized trial; we could say it is on the borderline of statistical significance. This also adds to the uncertainty physicians are faced with because the idea of accepting or not the use of the methodology in question is periodically changing.