ArticleMolecular genetics and metabolism reports2014
Accuracy of formula preparation equipment for liquid measurement.
Article in Molecular genetics and metabolism reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Variability and error in measurement of infant formula powder and water: an experimental study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundModular specialist feeds may consist of a number of individual liquid ingredients. Accurate feed preparation is dependent on competent liquid measurement. We investigate the accuracy of two measuring jugs (one retail mix-and-measure; and one produced to laboratory standards); and the influence of volume and technique on accuracy. MATERIALS AND
methods20 health professionals aged 18-60 y (mean: 46 y) measured 3 different volumes of water with each of two measuring jugs. For each volume with each jug, 2 measurements in randomised order were made: 1) eye-level with the jug, and 2) standing upright (total of 12 measurements). Measured quantities were weighed and the difference between measured and target volumes calculated.
resultsThe laboratory jug was more accurate (mean difference 9.3 ml, range - 30.5 to 57.5 ml, std error mean 1.59) than the retail jug (mean difference - 17.7 ml, range - 92.0 to 48.5 ml, std error mean 1.59). Accuracy improved with increased volume (450 ml: mean difference - 9.4 ml, range - 75.5 to 49.5 ml, std error mean 1.95; and 810 ml: mean difference - 0.7 ml; range - 92.0 to 43.0 ml, std error mean 1.95).
conclusionsAccurate measurement of liquid ingredients is difficult to achieve even for trained professionals. The cumulative effect of many different liquid measurement errors (inappropriate jug type, inaccurate volume measured and poor technique) may lead to clinically important errors in the preparation of modular specialist feeds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.