Some systematic reviews are confusing. Sometimes this is just poor writing style. Sometimes it\u2019s because the techniques are difficult to grasp (meta-analytic item-response analysis, anyone?) And occasionally it\u2019s because the data don\u2019t seem to add up \u2018right\u2019.<\/p>\n
Take, for example, the systematic review of an imaginary therapy which shows that when given to children with an asthma exacerbation it improves their clinical severity scores yet doesn\u2019t change their peak flow recordings.\u00a0 How\u2019s that work?<\/p>\n