Talk:Sudden infant death syndrome

Saying that SIDS declines to almost 0% after 1y is redundant. It is defined as death in the <1yo, so any death after 1y is not SIDS BY DEFINITION — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.151.89 (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

speculations

I made a major change here today - the section that was called "Speculated associations" has been renamed "Unproven hypotheses". There was a considerable amount of unsourced (and very unhelpful) material that I have removed.--Amaher (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Amaher: I changed the title from 'Unproven Hypotheses" to "Other Hypotheses." No hypothesis for the cause of SIDS is proven at this time, so your change was a bit misleading. Sidsmaven (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

uncited references

i removed the following references. These were just sitting at the bottom of the page. If they are in fact direclty relevant to the subject then they can go back in but they should be properly integrated into the article as inline citations.

• Scientists believe they have found the key to cot deaths, The Times
• Large rise in infant sofa deaths in UK at BBC
• Helen Carter, Flat out: Babies sleeping on their backs reduces the risk of cot death but may flatten their heads. Should we be worried, asks Helen Carter, The Guardian, July 8, 2003
• Wendy Hansen, Study suggests serotonin plays a role in SIDS: Mice who overproduced the brain chemical showed symptoms similar to those of the infant syndrome before they died., Los Angeles Times, July 5, 2008

• "Safe Sleep for Your Baby" ( National Institute of Child Health and Human Development website)
• DR. John Kattwinkel and 'Back to sleep' honored by Discovery health channel medical honors (American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP))
• Ten Reasons to Sleep Next to Your Child at Night (The Natural Child Project website)
• Phil Stevens, The Flip Side of 'Back to Sleep', The O&P Edge

"A Unifying Theory for SIDS" has appeared on-line that places in context all the important risk factors and characteristics of SIDS that are described in the sections above. It is an open access article and can be found at http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijped/2009/368270.cta.html

• Heaton PA, Sage MD (February 1995). "Fatal smothering by a domestic cat". N Z Med J. 108 (994): 62–3. PMID 7885652. 
• Kearney MS, Dahl LB, Stalsberg H (September 1982). "Can a cat smother and kill a baby?". Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 285 (6344): 777. PMC 1499543. PMID 6810995. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1499543. 

Cheers. --Amaher (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

New theory

Hi, I stumbled upon this (french). this is a news report talking about a new theory explaining SIDS as a result of over-activity of the vagus nerve. this news piece sounds legit, however, I could not find the any scientific article supporting that claim. has any 1 else heard about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.74.111.178 (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Co-sleeping and SIDS: Death by smothering is not SIDS

I think the risk factor "Co-sleeping with parents or other siblings increases the risk for accidental smothering" because I don't it think belongs on the list of risks factors for SIDS because smothering would be a known cause and SIDS generally is a diagnosis where there was is an unknown cause. I imagine that because it can be difficult to differentiate between a true case of smothering and SIDS that in many cases of a baby that dies while co-sleeping little effort may be made to specifically determine whether the cause was SIDS or smothering. While the potential risk of smothering inherent to co-sleeping (regardless of what safety guidelines one follows) is a valid concern (though highly debatable IMO), in terms of the risk of infant death in general, it's separate issues from SIDS. Since this article is about SIDS we not talk about the risks of smothering which is more appropriate for the article on co-sleeping. --Cab88 (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I see someone replaced the questionable statement I was referring too with a sourced statement that actually refers to SIDS not smothering which addresses by concerns. Thanks! --Cab88 (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite confused, because early on co-sleeping is listed as a postnatal risk factor, yet under its own title the indication is that there is a negative correlation. I'd love to correct the former bit of misinformation but will gladly wait and see if someone has another idea. Statarius (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Save this page

I am wondering what sick people are trying to vandalize this page and why there is no MOD or administrator available to finally lock this page. just fix the info and lock the sections that need no change in a long time such as THE First PARAGRAPH !!! for instance.119.155.29.176 (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Viral myocarditis as a cause of SIDS

Viral myocarditis may account for >15% of cases of sudden infant death syndrome (see two thirds down the page)

You might want to include this viral myocarditis etiology in the SIDS article.

Coxsackie B3 myocarditis in 4 cases of suspected sudden infant death syndrome

Sudden, Unexpected Death Related to Viral Myocarditis

Viral Myocarditis in Children

Myocarditis and sudden infant death syndrome

Myocarditis misdiagnosed as sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)

Drgao (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Geographic use of SIDS versus "crib death"

I'm an American and I have never heard of the term "crib death". I've always known of it as "SIDS" or Sudden infant death syndrom through newspaper articles, text books, etc. I question the veracity of the claim that SIDS isn't the more common term in the US. I think the lead should be changed.4meter4 (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Struck Off?

The article (and source) say that Roy Meadow was "struck off." What does this mean? He can't practice medicine anymore? Or he's just not allowed to testify as an expert witness anymore? It's not clear in the source article either. To a non-UK person that term is a bit opaque -- some explanation would help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.84.192 (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that it means "striken off" from the list of people who can legally practice medicine. (In the UK, to practice certain professions like medic or lawyer, you need to be registered with certain organisms, as regulated by British law. You could even go to jail if you practice without being registered). --Enric Naval (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Primary source

I just realized that the CDC WONDER online database is a WP:PRIMARY source. It consists of raw data without published analysis. Also, WONDER is being used to support conclusions that should be made by secondary sources (for example "this cannot explain the identical male fraction of 0.61 in other respiratory mortality causes (...) that also exists for all ages 1 to 14 years in the US from 1979 to 2005", which to be original research made by one editor.

I am removing this source as a primary source, and tagging or removing the supported texts. Sorry for not noticing this before. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes thanks. We need to make sure we use review articles per WP:MEDRS. Lots are available. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not think using the CDC WONDER online database violates the WP:PRIMARY source policy in every case here. In particular the use in the current first sentence of the Epidemiology section, "SIDS was responsible for 0.543 deaths per 1,000 live births in the US in 2005" is acceptable. The policy says, "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia,... to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." This is the case with the CDC WONDER online database in this sentence. The editor who wrote that did nothing but transcribe the numbers. Nick Beeson (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)