RETRACTED ARTICLE: Confessed versus denied inflicted head injuries in infants: similarities and differences

Vinchon, Matthieu; Karnoub, Mélodie‐Anne; Noulé, Nathalie; Lampin, Marie-Emilie

doi:10.1007/s00381-021-05381-8

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, I think this question has lost much of its interest because we now know that very few patients with SBS undergo CPR, and those admitted in intensive care are a minority. In our series published recently [4], 46% of our cases went to ICU and 31% were intubated (unpublished data). I admit the question of CPR remains agonizing for pathologists performing an autopsy after failed on-site resuscitation; however, it is now generally accepted that it does not by itself cause intracranial bleeding [5,6].…”

mentioning

confidence: 65%

Answer to Squier et al

Vinchon

2021

Childs Nerv Syst

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 65%

Answer to Squier et al

Vinchon

2021

Childs Nerv Syst

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been claimed that someone who confesses is ‘relieving his conscience’ (Vinchon et al, 2022), particularly in fatal cases, and these authors also claimed that the ‘judicial inquiry may have been less pressing in less severe cases’. But it can also be the other way around; the juridical inquiry might in fact have been more pressing in fatal cases (Lynøe & Eriksson, 2022).…”

Section: The Edwards Et Al Study and The Reasons For Confessingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even though Edwards et al (2020) and also Vinchon et al (2022) claim that confessions are reliable, their studies illustrate the difficulties of obtaining reliable information about the conditions under which the confessions were provided, and hence the risks of false confessions and of subsequent circular reasoning and high risk of bias. Uncritical acceptance of confessions as the reference test without detailed knowledge of what has been explicitly confessed, and under what conditions, will result in biased results – disguised as reliable results.…”

Section: The Edwards Et Al Study and The Reasons For Confessingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Circular reasoning, confessions and abusive head trauma: A critical analysis of Edwards et al. (2020)

Lynøe

Eriksson

2022

Child Abuse Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A major issue in current clinical research regarding shaken baby syndrome (SBS) and abusive head trauma (AHT) has been described as circular reasoning. Circular reasoning in this context means that a child protection team makes the SBS/AHT diagnosis, and that this diagnosis is also used as the reference test (gold standard) when researchers classify SBS/AHT cases as true positive cases. Circular reasoning results in a high risk of bias. In order to avoid this, videotaped, witnessed and spontaneously confessed shaking has been suggested as the currently least problematic means to avoid circular reasoning. Against this backdrop it is welcomed that Edwards et al. ( 2020) have conducted a systematic literature review in order to identify studies where someone has confessed to have shaken a baby with or without signs of impact. Even though Edwards et al. dismissed the risk of bias due to false confessions, false confessions can occur, e.g. if an expert witness convinces police and/or prosecutor that, in a case of isolated retino-dural haemorrhages (i.e. without signs of impact), violent shaking is the only possible mechanism. In such cases circular reasoning can hardly be avoided. In the best world, circumstances under which confessions are provided should be documented by video recording to allow critical assessment. Edwards et al., and Adamsbaum et al. (2010), explicitly make an important distinction between two major stated reasons for shaking a baby: a) shaking after a baby's collapse as a revival attempt, and b) shaking due to anger, frustration due to colicky crying, etc. Based on this distinction, we propose that these two major stated reasons for shaking actually should be separated, and that a caregiver who claims that he/she did shake the infant but as a revival attempt can be telling the truth. This hypothesis could be tested, e.g. by analysing the effect of AHT preventive interventions after separating the two categories of stated reason for shaking. Edwards et al. criticised the Swedish SBU report for having included only two (2) confession studies and claimed that they themselves, with their systematic literature review, 'clearly refute the argument that there are insufficient data within the published literature to support shaking as an important cause of AHT'. The correctness and relevance of this criticism depends on the research question, the difference between 'data' and 'evidence', as well as if the inclusion criteria, the exclusion criteria and the applied quality assessment are in accordance with the accepted principles of systematic literature reviews and evidence-based medicine.

show abstract

“…Interrogators frequently tell the caregiver that shaking/abuse is the only possible explanation for the baby's condition and apply psychological pressures that increase the risks of false confession. A second difficulty is that confessions have been taken to confirm a diagnosis of abusive head trauma (AHT) and to strengthen the robustness of the diagnostic criteria 3 . However, as those very diagnostic criteria are used to pressure the caregiver to confess, there is inevitable circularity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The need for rigorous diagnostic standards for abusive head trauma

Squier

2021

Acta Paediatrica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Confessed versus denied inflicted head injuries in infants: similarities and differences

Cited by 13 publications

References 22 publications

Answer to Squier et al

Answer to Squier et al

Circular reasoning, confessions and abusive head trauma: A critical analysis of Edwards et al. (2020)

The need for rigorous diagnostic standards for abusive head trauma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About