ArticleAcademic forensic pathology2017
Sudden Unexpected Infant Death Certification in New York City: Intra-Agency Guideline Compliance and Variables that May Influence Death Certification.
Article in Academic forensic pathology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unexplained and Unexpected Pediatric Deaths: Forensic Review and New Perspectives.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Indeterminacy of the Diagnosis of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Leading to Problems with the Validity of Data.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Half Century Since SIDS: A Reappraisal of Terminology.Pediatrics · 2021Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDifferences in certification of similar sudden infant deaths exists among forensic pathologists. This study sought to measure adherence to intra-agency guidelines for infant death certification in one jurisdiction and describe variables that may be associated with the differentiation of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), asphyxia, and undetermined death certifications.
methodsA retrospective study of deaths at the New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner identified 427 sudden infant deaths with investigation and autopsy whose cause of death was ruled SIDS, asphyxia, or undetermined. Cases were reviewed for number and types of risk factors for asphyxia, demonstrable evidence of asphyxia, potential competing causes of death, and a doll reenactment. Descriptive and statistical analysis was performed.
resultsOf 427 deaths, the causes of 100 deaths (23.4%) were ruled asphyxia; 43 (10.0%) SIDS; and 284 (66.5%) undetermined. Forensic pathologists conformed to agency guidelines in 406 deaths (95.1%). Three or more risk factors for asphyxia were found in 328 deaths (76.8%). Demonstrable evidence of asphyxia (40.7%) was most associated with a certification of asphyxia. A potential competing cause of death (20%) was most associated with undetermined. A doll reenactment had little association with certification type. DISCUSSION: Guidelines in one agency were effective at limiting incorrect SIDS diagnoses. The interpretation of risk factors can be subjective. Diagnostic overlap occurred in deaths certified differently as SIDS, asphyxia, and undetermined, despite similar findings. Elimination of SIDS as a certification option and better guidelines that help differentiate asphyxia and undetermined deaths are recommended for improved infant death certification.
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.