Byard Roger W, Marshall Drew
Discipline of Pathology, Level 3, Medical School North, The University of Adelaide, Frome Road, Adelaide 5005, Australia.
J Forensic Leg Med. 2007 Nov;14(8):453-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2006.11.003. Epub 2007 Apr 30.
Given that there are a number of contradictions in the SIDS literature and that the definition of SIDS that was relied upon to authenticate cases in reports is not always specified, an audit of publications was undertaken. Fifty papers dealing with SIDS that were published in 2005 were reviewed. The majority (58%) of reports had either not specified a definition of SIDS, or had used non-standard or idiosyncratic definitions. Of the papers that had documented a definition: 30% used the 1989 NICHD definition, 10% used the 2004 San Diego definition, and 2% used the 1969 Seattle definition. Failure to use standard published definitions of SIDS and/or to clearly specify the definition that has been followed may severely hamper the evaluation of SIDS research.
鉴于婴儿猝死综合征(SIDS)相关文献中存在诸多矛盾之处,且报告中用于验证病例的SIDS定义并非总是明确给出,因此对相关出版物进行了审查。对2005年发表的50篇关于SIDS的论文进行了回顾。大多数报告(58%)要么未明确给出SIDS的定义,要么使用了非标准或特殊的定义。在记录了定义的论文中:30%使用了1989年美国国立儿童健康与人类发展研究所(NICHD)的定义,10%使用了2004年圣地亚哥的定义,2%使用了1969年西雅图的定义。未能使用已发表的SIDS标准定义和/或未明确说明所遵循的定义可能会严重妨碍对SIDS研究的评估。