Guest guest Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 Hi ,I use Seca and a big fan so far. They are much cheaper and very accurate. I have one that I bought used that will measure down to two grams, two other Seca’s that measure down to 5 grams. I also recently bought two $60 scales that measure down to the ½ ounce that I plan to loan out so that I have the others free for more serious cases. I don’t understand why it’s important to buy expensive scales that measure to the gram when most of my clients have not been able to handle 24 hour test weights anyhow. We’ve just been doing daily weights. One time test weights are only a guide to the bigger picture. I know some of the LC’s on this list don’t use a scale. I personally like having scales and the most I have spent on the Seca’s are $400. I spent $200 on the one that measures down to 2 grams. That’s my 2 grams worth,June , RN, IBCLC From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of CaseySent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 2:26 PMTo: ibclc-pp Subject: scale f/u questions Hi ladies,So...I've been reading through the archives to see what folks' thoughts and experiences were with purchasing a sensitive scale for private practice. I wanted to follow up with a few questions. Most of the commentary on the Tanita vs. Medela scales seems to be from several years ago when the scales were exactly the same model. It's my understanding that now the Tanita is a new model (the 815u). That said, can anyone comment on the differences between the two scales and are there any reasons why the Medela would be worth the extra cost? Also, the picture of the Tanita makes it look like the tray where baby is placed is actually kind of small. Has anyone had an issue with bigger babies fitting on the scale? Lastly, someone mentioned that Tanita doesn't haven't great customer service. Has that been an issue for getting any needed repairs?Thanks in advance. Just really want to make the right decision on such a big purchase and am leaning towards the Tanita but want to be sure... Casey, LM, CPM, IBCLCNo virus found in this message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 2012.0.1890 / Virus Database: 2108/4680 - Release Date: 12/14/11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 I just did my first workshop on test-weighing and use of the growth chart and reread a lot of the studies on test weighing. There was a review of 33 studies and I read all of these. An in-depth understanding of measurement error would debunk MANY of the myths about test weighing. The first myth is that you have to do 24-hour test- weighing. There is enough research to show that you do NOT need to do 24-hour test weighing to get an " accurate " assessment of intake at a particular feed for assessment purposes. The issue involved is dependability. If you were in Bangladesh, babies eat the same amount around the clock. If you are in the US many babies do not eat the same amount around the clock because parents nudge their babies out of their natural sleep wake cycles. We all know and recent research has shown that babies in developed arounds drink more during the morning hours and less at night. For ANY INDICATOR OF INTAKE this is true. There is also quite a bit of evidence that clinical indicators are not accurate. Depending on the degree of expertise, estimates of intake by clinical indicators can be off by as much as an ounce. Ditto for making a baby drink from a bottle and having mom pump. Babies leave back 70% of the milk. Depending on the pump, responsive moms can often extract more milk in a shorter amount of time (I have 10 years of data on this) and unresponsive moms often extract less (this group comprises about 5% of the moms I see). Then because bottle feeding is stressful babies often take more than they need. So, if you are not prepared to do a 24 hour visit with a mother -- anything you do to assess intake is a snapshot. It requires intensive dialogue with the mother to determine how the feeding you observe. You can easily determine whether you are working with a mother who feeds her baby Bangladeshi style or American style. Or --- as is being discussed in the case of the baby who is not taking the bottle -- reverse cycle. The degree of accuracy of the scale is not the only issue. The cheaper scales do NOT do the triple average weight that improves the accuracy from wiggling babies. When you weigh a baby on a cheap scale, the error rate goes up beyond the specifications of the scale. The specifications of the scale are based on weighing a stationary object -- not a wiggling baby. The more expensive scales take a triple average of the weights -- which reduces the error rate substantial. They have a computerized strip inside. If you're ever opened up your scale you will find this strip inside. I wouldn't recommend doing it because dust can get inside on that strip. The scales that are accurate to 2 g are good for assessing intake. The scales that are accurate to 10 g are not. The misclassification rates are too high. On the other hand these are just fine for monitoring weight gain. I would only use a cheap scale for monitoring growth, not intake. This is one area where I do believe spending more money is worth it. Plus the durability of these more expensive scales is far greater than I had ever hoped. I could go into a lot more detail about measurement error but it would take pages and pages and would probably bore everyone to tears. Best regards, E. Burger, MHS, PhD, IBCLC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 Wonderful to hear all the awesome research you did on this ! I often wondered why 24 hour testing was needed, I can see now that it depends on the feeding schedule or lack of. In the definition of a “cheaper scale”, you would need to look at the specs. All three of my Seca’s average the weight out. The $60 scales that I bought for growth do not. You don’t have to spend $800 + to get an accurate scale. June , RN, IBCLC From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of BurgerSent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 8:13 AMTo: Subject: Re: scale f/u questions I just did my first workshop on test-weighing and use of the growth chart and reread a lot of the studies on test weighing. There was a review of 33 studies and I read all of these.An in-depth understanding of measurement error would debunk MANY of the myths about test weighing. The first myth is that you have to do 24-hour test- weighing. There is enough research to show that you do NOT need to do 24-hour test weighing to get an " accurate " assessment of intake at a particular feed for assessment purposes. The issue involved is dependability. If you were in Bangladesh, babies eat the same amount around the clock. If you are in the US many babies do not eat the same amount around the clock because parents nudge their babies out of their natural sleep wake cycles. We all know and recent research has shown that babies in developed arounds drink more during the morning hours and less at night. For ANY INDICATOR OF INTAKE this is true. There is also quite a bit of evidence that clinical indicators are not accurate. Depending on the degree of expertise, estimates of intake by clinical indicators can be off by as much as an ounce. Ditto for making a baby drink from a bottle and having mom pump. Babies leave back 70% of the milk. Depending on the pump, responsive moms can often extract more milk in a shorter amount of time (I have 10 years of data on this) and unresponsive moms often extract less (this group comprises about 5% of the moms I see). Then because bottle feeding is stressful babies often take more than they need.So, if you are not prepared to do a 24 hour visit with a mother -- anything you do to assess intake is a snapshot. It requires intensive dialogue with the mother to determine how the feeding you observe. You can easily determine whether you are working with a mother who feeds her baby Bangladeshi style or American style. Or --- as is being discussed in the case of the baby who is not taking the bottle -- reverse cycle. The degree of accuracy of the scale is not the only issue. The cheaper scales do NOT do the triple average weight that improves the accuracy from wiggling babies. When you weigh a baby on a cheap scale, the error rate goes up beyond the specifications of the scale. The specifications of the scale are based on weighing a stationary object -- not a wiggling baby. The more expensive scales take a triple average of the weights -- which reduces the error rate substantial. They have a computerized strip inside. If you're ever opened up your scale you will find this strip inside. I wouldn't recommend doing it because dust can get inside on that strip. The scales that are accurate to 2 g are good for assessing intake. The scales that are accurate to 10 g are not. The misclassification rates are too high. On the other hand these are just fine for monitoring weight gain. I would only use a cheap scale for monitoring growth, not intake. This is one area where I do believe spending more money is worth it. Plus the durability of these more expensive scales is far greater than I had ever hoped. I could go into a lot more detail about measurement error but it would take pages and pages and would probably bore everyone to tears.Best regards, E. Burger, MHS, PhD, IBCLCNo virus found in this message.Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 2012.0.1890 / Virus Database: 2108/4682 - Release Date: 12/15/11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 15, 2011 Report Share Posted December 15, 2011 , I have the Tanita 815 BU and LOVE it. The tray is more spacious than the medela baby weigh and I have had no issues weighed older babies and toddler (I just sit them up). I have only needed to call customer service once and they were great. I have used both scales and am really glad I went with the tanita. Cole Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 Thank you for sharing . Warmly, Mimi Pendlebury IBCLC, RLC Calgary, Alberta, Canada > > I just did my first workshop on test-weighing and use of the growth chart and reread a lot of the studies on test weighing. There was a review of 33 studies and I read all of these. > > An in-depth understanding of measurement error would debunk MANY of the myths about test weighing. The first myth is that you have to do 24-hour test- weighing. There is enough research to show that you do NOT need to do 24-hour test weighing to get an " accurate " assessment of intake at a particular feed for assessment purposes. The issue involved is dependability. If you were in Bangladesh, babies eat the same amount around the clock. If you are in the US many babies do not eat the same amount around the clock because parents nudge their babies out of their natural sleep wake cycles. We all know and recent research has shown that babies in developed arounds drink more during the morning hours and less at night. > > For ANY INDICATOR OF INTAKE this is true. There is also quite a bit of evidence that clinical indicators are not accurate. Depending on the degree of expertise, estimates of intake by clinical indicators can be off by as much as an ounce. Ditto for making a baby drink from a bottle and having mom pump. Babies leave back 70% of the milk. Depending on the pump, responsive moms can often extract more milk in a shorter amount of time (I have 10 years of data on this) and unresponsive moms often extract less (this group comprises about 5% of the moms I see). Then because bottle feeding is stressful babies often take more than they need. > > So, if you are not prepared to do a 24 hour visit with a mother -- anything you do to assess intake is a snapshot. It requires intensive dialogue with the mother to determine how the feeding you observe. You can easily determine whether you are working with a mother who feeds her baby Bangladeshi style or American style. Or --- as is being discussed in the case of the baby who is not taking the bottle -- reverse cycle. > > The degree of accuracy of the scale is not the only issue. The cheaper scales do NOT do the triple average weight that improves the accuracy from wiggling babies. When you weigh a baby on a cheap scale, the error rate goes up beyond the specifications of the scale. The specifications of the scale are based on weighing a stationary object -- not a wiggling baby. The more expensive scales take a triple average of the weights -- which reduces the error rate substantial. They have a computerized strip inside. If you're ever opened up your scale you will find this strip inside. I wouldn't recommend doing it because dust can get inside on that strip. The scales that are accurate to 2 g are good for assessing intake. The scales that are accurate to 10 g are not. The misclassification rates are too high. On the other hand these are just fine for monitoring weight gain. > > I would only use a cheap scale for monitoring growth, not intake. This is one area where I do believe spending more money is worth it. Plus the durability of these more expensive scales is far greater than I had ever hoped. > > I could go into a lot more detail about measurement error but it would take pages and pages and would probably bore everyone to tears. > > Best regards, > E. Burger, MHS, PhD, IBCLC > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.