Dear all: I want to thank Heather for sending me a copy of the British Medical Journal article. it is even worse than I suspected. It uses statistically erroneous methods for judging accuracy, does not provide any specific details on the methodology of how they established the accuracy of sucking up the milk in a syringe and pre and post weights of the device from which they fed, uses multiple observers for the volumetric measurements (a big no no) and assumes volume is a gold standard. They also do not provide the calibration standards of the scale. If you read this closely, they suggest computerized breast volume measurements and deuterium tracer studies might be more accurate. Why didn't they compare the test weighing and the "observations from bottle, cup and various other devices" against these other standards rather than comparing milk sucked up into a tube and put back into a cup, bottle or who knows what other device in that they might have used for their poorly described study methods. Plus, they did not prove statistically that test weighing is up to 30 ml off. They picked the farthest possible point between the measurements eyeballed off a syringe which presumably went back into a cup or bottle and the test weighing. You cannot conclude anything useful from this poorly designed, poorly described and inappropraitely analyzed study. Best Susan Burger *********************************************** 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 email list is powered by LISTSERV (R). There is only one LISTSERV. To learn more, visit: http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html