Dear all: I'm thinking about what future studies on NEC and donor milk should include the lessons learned from the Schanler study and improve the study design accordingly. The drop in NEC suggests that any additional that any additional studies should be done with a larger sample size that reflects the incidence you can expect with the current level of care. This should be established prior to conducting the study using RECENT records from the hospital where the study is to take place rather than extrapolated from other studies where the standards of care may differ in subtle, but important ways. Since NEC is such a serious outcome, I think the expected differences between the group should be much smaller than the 25 percentage points chosen by the authors - at most a difference of 5 to 10 percentage points. The high percentage of infants in the donor milk group who were given formula is something that can't be ignored and is just as important. Without verification that the actual nutrient content is the same in each treatment group one could easily be comparing apples to oranges and you would have know way of knowing whether or not that was the case. Individual testing of every milk sample would not be feasible either logistically or economically. So, several approaches come to mind: 1) Use a pooled analysis technique such as the ones devised by the statisticians at Cornell. This would drastically reduce costs and the statistical procedures involved in pooling are well worked out for how you determine an appropriate sample size that is much lower than is needed for individual samples. (The China study used samples from hundreds of thousands of people). The only danger of this technique is if you get "outliers". That is values that are way off the charts. If one sample happened to be an outlier, it could dramatically shift the results of a whole pooled sample. I'm sure the statisticians have worked out the probabilities of this happening and included this in their tehcniques. 2) Adopt a modified quality assurance technique. Laboratories set aside a certain number of samples for "quality assurance" testing either in a repeat analysis or with a more costly "gold standard" technique that would be unaffordable to use on all the samples. So for a study of this nature you would choose a subsamples from the donor milk and the mother's own milk and determine the "average" fat and protein content and selected important nutrients. In this way the mother's own milk and the donor milk could be calibrated in such a way that the "average" nutrient content of the milks was similar. 3). Now here is where those of you who work in NICUs would have a much clearer picture on this possibility than I would. Is there any reason why the donor milk could not be pooled so that it is fairly consistent? Will this introduce loss of fat when this milk is transferred from one container to another? Introduce too much potential for contamination? Or would it be possible to have a pretty homgenous sample and do it safely? If 3) were possible that would make it impossible to really compare to the mother's own milk group because the milk would be highly variable. However, comparing the mother's own milk group to the other two groups is ALWAYS going to be comparing apples to oranges because you can't ethically randomize that group when it is known that mother's own milk confers benefits. This group should never be compared in any sort of "probability" analysis for that reason. I'm also thinking that future studies could also include subgroups that looked at the interactive effects of kangaroo care within the pooled donor and formula groups. Susan E. Burger, MHS, PhD, IBCLC *********************************************** To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest) To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet All commands go to [log in to unmask] The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(R) mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to: http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html