ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2018
The Swedish Agency for health technology-report about traumatic shaking: much ado about nothing?
Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Inflicted head-injury by shaking-trauma in infants: the importance of spatiotemporal variations of the head's rotation center.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- In order to ensure that evidence is unbiased it is sometimes necessary to retreat to the scientific ivory tower.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The 2016 Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services (SBU) systematic review deals with the role of the 'triad' (subdural hematoma, retinal hemorrhages, and various forms of brain symptoms) in the medical investigation of suspected traumatic shaking. In this commentary we will not discuss the methodological shortcomings of the SBU-review but will concentrate on the effects of the review on the daily practice of protecting children and families in court procedures. In our opinion the report did not add anything to what was already known in clinical and forensic medicine. The SBU-review confirmed that shaking can cause the 'triad' and that there are other explanations for the 'triad' and its components. The report however did not provide a realistic list of these other explanations. The review reduced the discussion about inflicted head injury in young children to a discussion about the 'triad' and traumatic shaking, ignoring the fact that 'diagnosing' inflicted head injury concerns a complete clinical and forensic evaluation of all individual and combined findings, of which for example the presence of bruising or fractures, were excluded by the SBU-panel.
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.