forgot-pw
Well done!
What I find from media science reporters is often missing background or context (or just flat out wrong) with oodles of impact (supposedly). From scientific journal articles I often lack the required background to even follow the abstract and almost certainly not the jargon filled paper (whether they are written that way on purpose I have my own opinions about).
I know you can't spend time explaining every building block concept, but the selection of what gets background and the succicintess of the explanations here is really nice for me.
Their 2011 rear facing recommendation is based on a retracted article and their 2016 rec is based on the same article's data except using a smaller dataset which they acknowledge is not statistically significant. The only other data cited looks at rear facing Swedish children compared to _unbelted_ Swedish children.
I went back and reread it to make sure I was remembering right. I'm dumbfounded that this was allowed not only to stand as a rec, but was increased (deepened? made stronger?) when they had even less data than they did before. I get that it feels like it should be safer, but that's not science and I would have expected a group making medical and safety recs to maintain a higher standard.
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/5/e201824...