Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17264285›Full record

ReviewArchives of disease in childhood2007

Recommendations for sudden infant death syndrome prevention: a discussion document.

E A Mitchell

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of disease in childhood, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Bed sharing versus no bed sharing for healthy term neonates.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Early life nutrition.Science progress · 2018
    Review
  4. Why is a prone sleeping position dangerous for certain infants?Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2018
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Sudden infant death syndrome in mice with an inherited mutation in RyR2.Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology · 2009
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

E A MitchellDepartment of Paediatrics, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand. e.mitchell@auckland.ac.nz

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article reviews the evidence for the current UK Department of Health recommendations for prevention of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and suggests other factors that should be considered. The wording of the Department of Health recommendations for SIDS prevention has changed over the past 6 years, but the specific recommendations are largely consistent with the scientific evidence. The emphasis on thermal and illness factors and immunisation could be reduced. Bed sharing and sharing the parental bedroom should be given more emphasis. Two major recommendations need to be discussed in greater detail: (1) breast feeding and (2) pacifier use. Meta-analyses or reviews looking at each risk factor or a combination of risk factors are required. Further, it is recommended that a committee is established that reviews the recommendations and publishes the evidence that leads to these recommendations, as is done by the American Academy of Pediatrics Taskforce on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingEducationEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleHealth PromotionHumansInfantInfant CareMaternal-Fetal ExchangePacifiersPregnancyProne PositionRisk FactorsSleepSmokingSudden Infant Death

Identifiers

PMID17264285
PMCPMC2083309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.