ReviewAcademic forensic pathology2017
An Approach to the Classification of Apparent Asphyxial Infant Deaths.
Review in Academic forensic pathology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hidden and Under-Recognized Causes of Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy (SUDI): A Comprehensive Review of Autopsy Findings.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Infant Breathing and Bedding Characteristics: Objective Tests for Evaluating Their Relationship.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- The vicious spiral in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
- Article
- Indeterminacy of the Diagnosis of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Leading to Problems with the Validity of Data.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Sudden Unexpected Infant Death Certification in New York City: Intra-Agency Guideline Compliance and Variables that May Influence Death Certification.Academic forensic pathology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErrata.2017
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent evidence indicates that with thorough, high quality death investigations and autopsies, forensic pathologists have recognized that many unexpected infant deaths are, in fact, asphyxial in nature. With this recognition has come a commensurate decrease in, and in some cases, abolition of, the label "sudden infant death syndrome" (SIDS). Current controversies often pertain to how and why some infant deaths are determined to be asphyxial in nature and whether or not apparent asphyxial circumstances are risk factors for SIDS, or rather, harbingers of asphyxial deaths. In an effort to sidestep these controversies, some forensic pathologists elected to instead use the noncommittal label "sudden unexpected infant death" (SUID), leading to the unfortunate consequence of SUID - like SIDS - gaining notoriety as an actual disease that could be diagnosed, studied, and ultimately cured. Although it is not possible to provide death certification guidance for every conceivable type of unexpected infant death, we recognize and propose a simple classification system for overarching themes that cover the vast majority of cases where infants die suddenly and unexpectedly.
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.