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