An analysis of the use of standard SIDS definitions in the English language literature over a three‐year period (2019–2021)

Abstract

Aim To evaluate the use of the three standard definitions of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) in the contemporary literature. Methods A search was undertaken of the US National Library of Medicine ‘PubMed’ database for all research articles listed under ‘sudden infant death syndrome’ or ‘SIDS’, from 2019 to 2021 accessible through the University of Adelaide library. Results 564 papers had keywords ‘sudden infant death syndrome’ or ‘SIDS’. 300 papers were not included in the study as they were not written in English, SIDS was not the primary focus, publishing was in predatory journals, or they were Letters to the Editor, commentaries, technical reports, reviews or editorials. The remaining 264 papers consisted of 172 papers without a standard definition, including reports without definitions, with idiosyncratic or incorrectly quoted definitions or with incorrect referencing (65%), and 92 with one of the three standard definitions either quoted in full in the text or correctly referenced (35%). Conclusion Nearly two‐thirds of peer‐reviewed publications on SIDS listed on PubMed over the past three years have not quoted or referenced accepted definitions. Interpreting research conclusions and monitoring trends in SIDS mortality will be extremely difficult if different population subgroups are being targeted by different research groups.

A postmortem study of unexpected natural pediatric deaths in Egypt

“…Unfortunately, to date, SIDS results in a significant proportion of deaths during infancy worldwide despite the improvement in healthcare and medical research. The etiology of SIDS is unknown, but it is considered a multifactorial disorder (DiMaio and Molina, 2022;Tan and Byard, 2022).…”

Issue Highlights

“…The authors concluded that the increasing trend of not following standard definitions may hinder data interpretation and have a negative impact on the validity of SIDS research. In another paper in this issue, Tan et al analysed the use of standard SIDS definitions from 2019 to 2021 8 …”

The San Diego SIDS definition—20 Years on

“…In case these data were influenced by inadvertent selection bias, a more thorough study was then performed in which consecutive published papers over a 3‐year period (2019–2021) were examined. Of the 264 papers evaluated, 172 (65%) had no definition or idiosyncratic or incorrectly quoted definitions or incorrect referencing, with only 92 (35%) having one of the three standard definitions either quoted in full in the text or correctly referenced 20 . Thus, nearly two‐thirds of peer‐reviewed SIDS publications between 2019 and 2021 have not quoted or referenced internationally accepted definitions.…”

“…Of the 264 papers evaluated, 172 (65%) had no definition or idiosyncratic or incorrectly quoted definitions or incorrect referencing, with only 92 (35%) having one of the three standard definitions either quoted in full in the text or correctly referenced. 20 Thus, nearly twothirds of peer-reviewed SIDS publications between 2019 and 2021 have not quoted or referenced internationally accepted definitions. This is a marked decrease of 33% from the 68% of papers that correctly used SIDS definitions in 2011.…”