Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2004;328:767 (27 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7442.767
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITORThe "serious data gaps, flaws of logic, and inconsistency of case definition" shown up by the evidence based case report of the shaken baby syndrome (p 754) and highlighted in the accompanying editorials (pp 719 and 720) will be of interest to the many parents who over the past 10 years have maintained that they have been wrongly accused and convicted of causing their children's injuries.1-3
Furthermore, the recent evidence emphasised by Geddes and Plunkett that trivial falls and other minor injuries can give rise to the allegedly characteristic signs of subdural and retinal haemorrhages is consistent with a triad of possible alternative explanations for shaken baby syndrome. This triad has emerged from an analysis of 98 parental accounts reported to the support group the Five Percenters, each of the three being compatible with a distinct type of neuropathology.
The first is minor trauma (37%
James LeFanu, general practitioner
Mawbey Brough Health Centre, London SW8 2UD
Rioch Edwards-Brown, director
The Five Percenters, PO Box 23212, London SE14 5WB sbs5@dircon.co.uk
Read all Rapid Responses
UK medical students have published unreleased government plans to restrict failed asylum seekers' access to medical care