(E.g., "A positive trend indicates increasing underestimation of FM at high FM levels; a negative trend indicates increasing overestimation of FM at high FM levels.
Much of the Discussion addresses strengths and weaknesses of the different BC methods, as if to provide guidance for clinicians in selecting the best techniques according to their needs and capabilities. None of the methods are ideal – all are flawed (in comparison with a gold standard). Yet a firm conclusion seems to be lacking. Concluding that methods differ is not surprising. One may be better served by discussing how the differences in methods (i.e. over or under estimating FM) may affect health assessments. That is, what impact may underestimating FM, by relying on one particular method, have on child care? How critical is the method selection? Somehow this needs to be tied more firmly to the population and environment being studied.