ArticleInternational journal of legal medicine2020
An evaluation of pathologists' application of the diagnostic criteria from the San Diego definition of SIDS and unclassified sudden infant death.
Article in International journal of legal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Infant death from accidental suffocation and strangulation in bed in England and Wales: rare or unrecognised events?BMJ paediatrics open · 2024Article
- Article
- Indeterminacy of the Diagnosis of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Leading to Problems with the Validity of Data.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A proof-of-concept study to construct Bayesian network decision models for supporting the categorization of sudden unexpected infant death.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Univariate Analysis of Short-Chain Fatty Acids Related to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Applying a Social Exclusion Framework to Explore the Relationship Between Sudden Unexpected Deaths in Infancy (SUDI) and Social Vulnerability.Frontiers in public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Despite being widely used, few studies have assessed the utility of the San Diego definition of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). The purpose of this study was to evaluate pathologists' application of the San Diego definition in all cases of sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI) that occurred in Queensland, Australia, between 2010 and 2014. Key coronial documents of 228 cases of SUDI were reviewed independently by three reviewers and classified according to the San Diego definition. Clear guidance regarding the evidentiary threshold for classification and interpretation of the San Diego definition was provided. All reviewers classified cases identically in 202 cases (88.6%). Consensus was achieved on the classification of the remaining 26 deaths following case discussion. After review, 79 cases were classified as SIDS, a one third reduction compared with the original classification, mainly due to a high probability of accidental asphyxia. The number of cases classified as undetermined (USID) almost doubled (75/228, 32.9%), and there was more than a fivefold increase in cases classified as asphyxia (43/228, 18.9%). Natural conditions decreased by approximately one third (21/228, 9.2%). This study demonstrates that with clear guidelines for interpretation, the San Diego definition can be applied reliably, with discrepancies resolved through a process of peer review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31317315What 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.