Unexplained infant and child death: A review of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, Sudden Unexplained Infant Death, and child maltreatment fatalities including shaken baby syndrome

Current Opinion in Pediatrics

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 196-200

  Newton, Alice W ^a,b   Vandeven, Andrea M ^a  

^a MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b BOSTON CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Child maltreatment fatalities; Shaken baby syndrome; Sudden infant death syndrome; Sudden unexplained infant death

Indexed keywords

ATTENTION; AUTOPSY; CADAVER; CHILD DEATH; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; EVALUATION; FATALITY; GRIEF; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MEDICAL LITERATURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME; SUDDEN DEATH; SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TEAMWORK;

BIOMECHANICS; CHILD ABUSE; HUMANS; INFANT; INFANT, NEWBORN; PACIFIERS; POSTURE; RISK FACTORS; SHAKEN BABY SYNDROME; SLEEP; SUDDEN INFANT DEATH; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33646528026     PISSN: 10408703     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.mop.0000193296.32764.1e     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. Krous HF, Beckwith JB, Byard RW, et al. Sudden infant death syndrome and unclassified sudden infant deaths: a definitional and diagnostic approach. Pediatrics 2004; 114:234-238.
2. Bajanowski T, Brinkmann B, Vennemann M. The San Diego definition of SIDS: practical application and comparison with the GeSID classification. Int J Legal Med 2005:1-6 (Oct 20). This article discusses the German SIDS study, and looks at the value of applying the San Diego SIDS definition to the German data.
3. Malloy MH, MacDorman M. Changes in the classification of sudden unexpected infant deaths: United States, 1992-2001. Pediatrics 2005; 115:1247-1253. The authors carefully analyze the history of SIDS classification in the International Classification of Diseases, and discuss how changes in classification over the years have influenced the SIDS rate.
4. Task Force on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. The changing concept of sudden infant death syndrome: diagnostic coding shifts, controversies regarding the sleeping environment, and new variables to consider in reducing risk. Pediatrics 2005; 116:1245-1255. An important update that provides a complex discussion about SIDS diagnosis and prevention, with a focus on many new variables which appear to decrease the risk of SIDS.
5. Sidebotham P. Unexpected but not unexplained: investigating a case of sudden unexplained death in infancy. Arch Dis Child Educa Pract Ed 2005; 90: ep40-ep45. Dr Sidebotham discusses a multidisciplinary, multiagency approach to the evaluation of a case of SUID in which a family with significant social risk factors is treated respectfully throughout a thorough forensic evaluation of their 10-day-old infant's death.
6. Li L, Fowler D, Liu L, et al. Investigation of sudden infant deaths in the State of Maryland (1990-2000). Forensic Sci Int 2005; 148:85-92. The authors detail the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to evaluating sudden infant deaths.
7. The Task Force on Infant Sleep Position and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Changing concepts of sudden infant death syndrome: implications for infant sleeping environment and sleep position. Pediatrics 2000; 105:650-656.
8. Hauck FR, Omojokun OO, Siadaty MS. Do pacifiers reduce the risk of sudden infant death syndrome? A meta-analysis. Pediatrics 2005; 116:716-723. This meta-analysis discusses the pros and cons of pacifier use, with a conclusion that use of pacifiers during sleep may in fact reduce the risk of SIDS.
9. Tappin D, Ecob R, Stat S, Brooke H. Bedsharing, roomsharing, and sudden infant death syndrome in Scotland: a case-control study. J Pediatr 2005; 147:32-37.
10. MacGarvey C, McDonnell M, Hamilton K, et al. An eight-year study of risk factors for SIDS: Bed-sharing vs. non bed-sharing. Arch Dis Child 2005 (doi 10.1136).
11. Lahr MB, Rosenberg KD, Lapidus J. Bedsharing and maternal smoking in a population-based survey of new mothers. Pediatrics 2005; 116:530-542.
12. Norton R. A dismal and dangerous verdict against Roy Meadow. Lancet 2005; 366:277-278.
13. Norton R. In defence of Roy Meadow. Lancet 2005; 366:3-5. The author discusses the controversial findings of the British General Medical Council, who found a physician guilty of 'Serious Professional Misconduct' related to testimony given in an infant death case.
14. Dyer C. Diagnosis of "shaken baby syndrome" still valid, appeal court rules. BMJ 2005; 331:253.
15. Carpenter RG, Waite A, Coombs RC, et al. Repeat sudden unexpected and unexplained infant deaths: natural or unnatural? Lancet 2005; 365:29-35. Contrary to the instinct of most child maltreatment professionals, the authors present data which show that a second SIDS death in a family is likely to be natural rather than from foul play.
16. Kiechl-Kohlendorfer U, Hof D, Pup Peglow U, et al. Epidemiology of apparent life threatening events. Arch Dis Child 2004; 90:297-300. Importantly, this article describes the differences in presentation between SIDS and ALTE cases.
17. Ray M, Ghosh D, Malhi P, et al. Shaken baby syndrome masquerading as apparent life threatening event. Indian J Pediatr 2005; 72:85-86.
18. National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. Child abuse and neglect fatalities: statistics and interventions. Accessed December 2005 from http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm. A valuable resource for up-to-date statistics on child maltreatment.
19. Kellogg ND, Lukefahr JL. Criminally prosecuted cases of child starvation. Pediatrics 2005; 116:1309-1316.
20. Schnitzer PG, Ewigman BG. Child deaths resulting from inflicted injuries: household risk factors and perpetrator characteristics. Pediatrics 2005; 116:687-693. This article describes the significant role that a non-related household member can play in infant death.
21. Wrigley J, Dreby J. Fatalities and the organization of child care in the United States, 1985-2003. Am Sociol Rev 2005; 70:729-757. This thoughtful and detailed analysis of risks in different daycare settings is a must read for pediatricians and social policy makers alike.
22. Hymel KP, Hall CA. Diagnosing pediatric head trauma. Guidance for pediatricians on distinguishing between accidental and inflicted injuries. Pediatr Ann 2005; 34:358-370. This excellent review is important for any pediatrician who is involved in diagnosing or treating cases of possible SBS.
23. Biron D, Shelton D. Perpetrator accounts in infant abusive head trauma brought about by a shaking event. Child Abuse Negl 2005; 29:1347-1358.
24. Starling SP, Patel S, Burke B, et al. Analysis of perpetrator admissions to inflicted traumatic brain injury in children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2004; 158:454-458.
25. Bandak FA. Shaken baby syndrome: a biomechanics analysis of injury mechanisms. Forensic Sci Int 2005; 151:71-79.
26. Shah M, Vavilala MS, Feldman KW, Hallam DK. Motor vehicle crash brain injury in infants and toddlers: a suitable model for inflicted head injury? Child Abuse Negl 2005; 29:953-967.
27. Barlow KM, Thomson E, Johnson D, Minns RA. Late neurologic and cognitive sequelae of inflicted traumatic brain injury in infancy. Pediatrics 2005; 116:e174-e185. This important article on sequelae of inflicted traumatic brain injury shows the importance of extended follow-up of victims, and details specific deficits that may result from injury.
28. Dias MS, Smith K, deGuehery K, et al. Preventing abusive head trauma among infants and young children: a hospital-based, parent education program. Pediatrics 2005; 115:e470-e477. Professionals in the field of child abuse prevention have been waiting for the results of Dr Dias' SBS prevention work, and they were not disappointed by the significant findings of SBS reduction felt to be secondary to in-hospital education.