ArticleThe Journal of medicine and philosophy2019
From Child Protection to Paradigm Protection-The Genesis, Development, and Defense of a Scientific Paradigm.
Article in The Journal of medicine and philosophy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Questionnaire-Based Experimental Study of the Diagnostic Process in Suspected Shaken Baby Syndrome.Annals of the Child Neurology Society · 2025Article
- The disservice of publishing preliminary results based on a premature hypothesis - Semmelweis' ordeal revisited.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2025Article
- Transfer of knowledge to diagnose infant abuse and its incidence - a time-series analysis from Sweden.Implementation science : IS · 2022Article
- Can Burnout Among Child Abuse Clinicians be Caused by Doubt that They are Doing the Right Thing?The Permanente journal · 2020Article
- Pouring out the dirty bathwater without throwing away either the baby or its parents: commentary to Saunders et al.Pediatric radiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A scientific paradigm typically embraces research norms and values, such as truth-seeking, critical thinking, disinterestedness, and good scientific practice. These values should prevent a paradigm from introducing defective assumptions. But sometimes, scientists who are also physicians develop clinical norms that are in conflict with the scientific enterprise. As an example of such a conflict, we have analyzed the genesis and development of the shaken baby syndrome (SBS) paradigm. The point of departure of the analysis is a recently conducted systematic literature review, which concluded that there is very low scientific evidence for the basic assumption held by Child Protection Teams: when certain signs are present (and no other "acceptable" explanations are provided) the infant has been violently shaken. We suggest that such teams have developed more value-based than scientific-based criteria when classifying SBS cases. Further, we suggest that the teams are victims of "groupthink," aggravating the difficulties in considering critics' questioning the criteria established by the teams.
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.