BMJ  2004;328:1316-1317 (29 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7451.1316

Letter

The evidence base for shaken baby syndrome

Response to editorial from 106 doctors

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR—In challenging the diagnosis of shaken baby syndrome in their recent editorial Geddes and Plunkett make a number of serious errors in interpreting the research on this issue, and they display a worrisome and persistent bias against the diagnosis of child abuse in general.¹

In their opening sentence Geddes and Plunkett describe shaking a child to "produce whiplash forces that result in subdural and retinal bleeding," omitting the most important element in this condition: brain injury itself. They elaborate that the "theory" of shaken baby syndrome rests on some core assumptions, including that "the injury an infant receives from shaking is invariably severe."

This is in conflict with the research of Alexander et al, Ewing-Cobbs et al, Kemp et al, and Jenny et al, who found that 30%-40% of newly diagnosed shaken baby cases had medical evidence of previously undiagnosed head injury.^2-5 These infants had such mild or . . . [Full text of this article]

-->

Retinal haemorrhages

Literature on shaken baby syndrome

Short falls in childhood

Biomechanical studies

Conclusion

PO Box 523, 122 Hawk Pine Road, Norwich, VT 05055, USA rmreece1.aol.com

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

The evidence base for shaken baby syndrome: Meaning of signature must be made explicit

Mark Donohoe
BMJ 2004 329: 741. [Extract] [Full Text]

The evidence base for shaken baby syndrome: Competing interest declaration of the 106 authors and an editorial explanation

Robert M Reece
BMJ 2004 329: 741. [Extract] [Full Text]

The evidence base for shaken baby syndrome: Response to Reece et al from 41 physicians and scientists

Patrick E Lantz
BMJ 2004 329: 741-742. [Extract] [Full Text]

The evidence base for shaken baby syndrome

J F Geddes and J Plunkett
BMJ 2004 328: 719-720. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Perimacular retinal folds from childhood head trauma

P E Lantz, S H Sinal, C A Stanton, and R G Weaver, Jr
BMJ 2004 328: 754-756. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Kumar, R. (2005). Wrongful diagnosis of child abuse. JRSM 98: 386-386 [Full text]  
• Donohoe, M. (2004). The evidence base for shaken baby syndrome: Meaning of signature must be made explicit. BMJ 329: 741-741 [Full text]  
• Reece, R. M (2004). The evidence base for shaken baby syndrome: Competing interest declaration of the 106 authors and an editorial explanation. BMJ 329: 741-741 [Full text]  
• Lantz, P. E (2004). The evidence base for shaken baby syndrome: Response to Reece et al from 41 physicians and scientists. BMJ 329: 741-742 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Worrisome bias of Professor Reece et al;

Michael D Innis
bmj.com, 28 May 2004 [Full text]

Smoke, Mirrors and Bandwagons

L. Travis Haws
bmj.com, 29 May 2004 [Full text]

106 Signatures and competing interests

Mark J Donohoe
bmj.com, 28 May 2004 [Full text]

WOW Did these 106 MD"s Do any research

Lois Herlihy
bmj.com, 29 May 2004 [Full text]

Re: 106 Signatures and competing interests

John D Stone
bmj.com, 29 May 2004 [Full text]

Re: 106 Signatures and competing interests

Michael D Innis
bmj.com, 29 May 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: 106 Signatures and competing interests

John D Stone
bmj.com, 30 May 2004 [Full text]

A self-perpetuating oligarchy?

John D Stone
bmj.com, 31 May 2004 [Full text]

theory verses certain knowledge

CA Johnson
bmj.com, 4 Jun 2004 [Full text]

Confessions are not evidence

Arnold D. Wadle
bmj.com, 5 Jun 2004 [Full text]

Re: Confessions are not evidence

John P Heptonstall
bmj.com, 6 Jun 2004 [Full text]

Nor are convictions in the criminal courts, or findings of fact in the family courts

Brian Morgan
bmj.com, 6 Jun 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Confessions are not evidence

Hilary Butler
bmj.com, 7 Jun 2004 [Full text]

Thanks for this article.

Linda D. Skinner
bmj.com, 7 Jun 2004 [Full text]

First Hand Account-Dr Reece Open Your Mind

Mark D Sundloff
bmj.com, 12 Jun 2004 [Full text]

SBS Proponents Should Disclose Funding

Tracy L. Emblem
bmj.com, 12 Jun 2004 [Full text]

Re: SBS Proponents Should Disclose Funding

Peter J Stephens
bmj.com, 13 Jun 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: SBS Proponents Should Disclose Funding

HEATHER LOHR
bmj.com, 14 Jun 2004 [Full text]

SBS EVIDENCE FLAWED - INJUSTICE RIFE

Michael D Innis
bmj.com, 14 Jun 2004 [Full text]

Changes

Lisa C Blakemore-Brown
bmj.com, 17 Jun 2004 [Full text]

Reece et al’s Worrisome Bias and Persistent Zealousy: Malpractice

Alan R. Yurko
bmj.com, 20 Jun 2004 [Full text]

Re: Reece et al’s Worrisome Bias and Persistent Zealousy: Malpractice

Michael D Innis
bmj.com, 23 Jun 2004 [Full text]

Re: Re: Reece et al’s Worrisome Bias and Persistent Zealousy: Malpractice

Michael D Innis
bmj.com, 24 Jun 2004 [Full text]

Shaken Baby Syndrome - We NEED a DIAGNOSTIC PROTOCOL - WE NEED to get it RIGHT!

Donna L Meads-Barlow
bmj.com, 5 Aug 2004 [Full text]

Reece et al's Collective Discrepancies Noted by a Collective Group of Concerned Citizens

L. Travis Haws, et al.
bmj.com, 2 Aug 2006 [Full text]

Evidence base?

Brian Morgan
bmj.com, 24 Sep 2004 [Full text]

Re: Shaken Baby Syndrome - We NEED a DIAGNOSTIC PROTOCOL - WE NEED to get it RIGHT!

Michael Innis
bmj.com, 27 Jan 2005 [Full text]