Response to editorial from 106 doctors
- Robert M Reece, clinical professor of paediatrics (rmreece1@aol.com)
- PO Box 523, 122 Hawk Pine Road, Norwich, VT 05055, USA
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 non-specific symptoms and signs that their trauma was previously not diagnosed. The diagnosis was ultimately made when the children had subsequent severe episodes of abuse, with computer tomographic evidence of both acute and older subdural haematomata and brain injuries.

Retinal haemorrhages
Geddes and Plunkett then consider retinal haemorrhages. Lantz et al, in the same issue, question the specificity of perimacular folds in abusive head trauma in infancy.6 They conclude from a literature review that there was no support for the contention that perimacular folds are pathognomonic for abusive head injury. Geddes and Plunkett applied these authors' conclusions not only to perimacular folds but also to retinal haemorrhages.
Although research on the subject of inflicted childhood neurotrauma—over 600 peer reviewed articles—does not claim that retinal haemorrhages are pathognomonic for …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: How much of a social media profile can doctors have?
Published 13 February 2012
Re: Diagnosis and management of Raynaud’s phenomenon
Published 13 February 2012
Re: Is it unethical for doctors to encourage healthy adults to donate a kidney to a stranger? No
Published 13 February 2012
Re: Report predicts 20 million AIDS orphans in Africa by 2010
Published 13 February 2012
Re: On the impossibility of being expert
Published 13 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (8 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
How much of a social media profile can doctors have? (7 responses)
Published 23 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012