In order to ensure that evidence is unbiased it is sometimes necessary to retreat to the scientific ivory tower

Lynøe, Niels; Eriksson, Anders

doi:10.1007/s12024-018-0037-0

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, if one were to embrace the hypoxicbrain-swelling-increased-intracranial-pressure-cascade-theory, an infant without external signs of trauma would probably not be classified as an SBS/AHT case (37). Although protecting infants is understandable among child-protection clinicians, the use of such a value-based judgment by the concerned scientists when classifying AHT cases in scientific studies will become a huge problem (39,40).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Denialism Preserves Scientific Controversies: a Case Study of Abusive Head Trauma Research

Lynøe

Eriksson

2020

jcbmr

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The traditional theory of abusive head trauma requires scientific scrutiny. Those who question the validity of this theory have been accused of denialism for the purpose of obfuscating evidence in legal settings and supporting abusive caregivers. The traditional theory holds that abusive head trauma results from “shaken baby syndrome”. In reference to abusive head trauma in the absence of external signs of trauma, we argue that it is the child-protection clinicians and concerned researchers who represent denialism. We have identified three types of denialism in this area: (i) denialism of the presence of a scientific controversy; (ii) denialism of relevant scientific distinctions between abusive head trauma cases with versus without external signs of trauma; and (iii) denialism of circular reasoning as a major risk of bias. The analysis discloses that the scientific controversy pertaining to abusive head trauma is real and that it is problematic to lump together all alleged abusive head trauma, with and without external signs of trauma. Further, it has been ignored that circular reasoning results in a high risk of bias. We conclude that denialism preserves rather than promotes scientific developments on abusive head trauma research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%