4 ms·

1. It's an exploratory study which both confirms previous results and builds on them. Furthermore, a sample size of 21 is not too inherently small to draw concl

1. It's an exploratory study which both confirms previous results and builds on them. Furthermore, a sample size of 21 is not too inherently small to draw conclusions - that would depend on the effect sizes between conditions... 2. The study is explicitly about whether or not the children stay asleep after the different proposed routines. This is one of the main points of the article and is directly addressed within: "When an infant falls asleep in one’s arms or in a stroller, parents would then want to put the infant to bed. However, this laydown procedure often makes the infant alert again. In this study, 9 of 26 (34.6%) sleeping infants awoke by 20 s after the laydown, while the remaining 17 infants stayed asleep. " https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(22)01363-X.pdf https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(22)01363... Why comment with a critique if you didn't even have a cursory look at the paper, or even understand what the dependant variables are?

Markoff 4y ago
> Why comment with a critique if you didn't even have a cursory look at the paper, or even understand what the dependant variables are? Because I am commenting on article posted on HN. No such information provided in linked article, nor is the study linked there. > In this study, 9 of 26 (34.6%) sleeping infants awoke by 20 s after the laydown, while the remaining 17 infants stayed asleep. Thanks for link to the study and thanks for proving me right with the quote. More than 1/3 of children waking up almost instantly within 20 seconds just confirms this is hardly usable and "best" way to put crying baby to sleep even with such small sample size. And if we had more data I'd expect most of the babies woke up shortly after that 20 seconds limit. I tried to look at the charts but they are difficult to read, since they don't provide normal table with times for all babies. It's similar nonsense as road casualties, which are not comparable across countries since some countries count causalty as someone dying after car accident within 7 or 30 days and if you crash and lay in coma 31 days you are suddenly not road casualty anymore, same as here amusing 20 seconds threshold for success.

Markoff 4y ago

> Why comment with a critique if you didn't even have a cursory look at the paper, or even understand what the dependant variables are? Because I am commenting on article posted on HN. No such information provided in linked article, nor is the study linked there. > In this study, 9 of 26 (34.6%) sleeping infants awoke by 20 s after the laydown, while the remaining 17 infants stayed asleep. Thanks for link to the study and thanks for proving me right with the quote. More than 1/3 of children waking up almost instantly within 20 seconds just confirms this is hardly usable and "best" way to put crying baby to sleep even with such small sample size. And if we had more data I'd expect most of the babies woke up shortly after that 20 seconds limit. I tried to look at the charts but they are difficult to read, since they don't provide normal table with times for all babies. It's similar nonsense as road casualties, which are not comparable across countries since some countries count causalty as someone dying after car accident within 7 or 30 days and if you crash and lay in coma 31 days you are suddenly not road casualty anymore, same as here amusing 20 seconds threshold for success.