Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42563934›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the Child Neurology Society2025

Questionnaire-Based Experimental Study of the Diagnostic Process in Suspected Shaken Baby Syndrome.

N Lynøe, A Castor, N Juth, A Eriksson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the Child Neurology Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Spread of "triad diagnostics" in suspected Shaken Baby Syndrome.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

N LynøeCentre for Healthcare Ethics Karolinska Institutet Stockholm Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2978-3331
A CastorDepartment of Pediatrics, Childhood Cancer Center Skane University Hospital Lund Sweden.
N JuthCentre for Healthcare Ethics Karolinska Institutet Stockholm Sweden.
A ErikssonDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Forensic Medicine Umeå University Umeå Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to examine the correctness of the statement that the diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome (SBS) is a "medical conclusion." Design: If the outcome of an event is considered bad, people tend to attribute intent or responsibility. Against this backdrop, a randomized, blinded trial was applied using two case-based questionnaires of possible violent shaking of an infant, identical except for the outcome: fatal or nonfatal. Setting: We used a report of a 2-month-old baby who had suddenly stopped breathing and was subsequently shaken by the father with the intention to resuscitate him. After admission, encephalopathy, subdural hemorrhages, and retinal hemorrhages were detected. Participants: A total of 1269 randomly selected physicians received the questionnaire, whose distribution was randomized and blinded. The participants were not informed about the existence of two versions of the questionnaire. Results: The participants who responded to the fatal version considered in a significantly higher proportion (79% [95% CI: 73-85]) that shaking caused the triad findings than those who responded to the nonfatal version (68% [95% CI: 61-75]) ( Conclusion: The study indicates that among pediatricians and ophthalmologists, the diagnostic process in suspected SBS is more value-based than evidence-based. As these two specialties dominate the SBS diagnostic procedure, the SBS diagnosis is, in this sense, not strictly a "medical conclusion."

Indexed as

ascribing intentionsbad consequencesnon‐accidental traumarandomized blinded studyvalue‐impregnated results

Identifiers

PMID42563934
PMCPMC13359155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.