Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Among Twins

Malloy, Michael H.; Freeman, Daniel

doi:10.1001/archpedi.153.7.736

Cited by 24 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although some [19,31] have shown that low birth weight twins are less at risk for SIDS than low birth weight singletons, others [8] have shown that twins are at a higher risk for SIDS than singletons. Monozygous twins may be at increased risk of SIDS [31].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The prevalence of cobedding and SIDS-related child care practices in twins

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The prevalence of cobedding and SIDS-related child care practices in twins

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[1][2][3][4][5] Some of the excess risk may be attributable to confounding by birth weight, but there are conflicting reports of whether or not any increased risk of SIDS is independent of birth weight. An early study of SIDS found that twins of birthweight groups <2000 g and 2001-2500 g were at significantly increased risk compared with singletons, and concluded that the increased risk among twins is independent of birth weight.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 In contrast, a more recent study concluded that, independent of birth weight, twins do not appear to be at greater risk for SIDS compared with singleton births. 5 In any assessment of the birthweight effect on SIDS mortality in twins, zygosity must also be taken into consideration. The lower the birth weight, the greater is the likelihood that the twins are monozygous (MZ); and MZ are at greater risk than dizygous (DZ) twins of fetal and infant death, cerebral impairment, and other congenital anomalies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The epidemiology of sudden infant death syndrome

Platt¹

2003

Archives of Disease in Childhood

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Twins compared to singletons are at increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Aims: To compare the epidemiology of SIDS in twins and singletons and to test the hypothesis that monozygous (MZ) were at greater risk of SIDS than dizygous (DZ) twins. Methods: Data from the Office for National Statistics on all registered live births and infant deaths with registered cause of death "sudden unexpected death in infancy" in England and Wales from 1993 to 1998 were obtained, together with the registered birth weight and, for twins, whether they were of like or unlike sex. Results: The crude relative risk of SIDS in twins is twice that in singletons. There has been a significant temporal decline in SIDS mortality. There is also a significant increase in risk with decreasing birth weight for both twins and singletons. The birth weight specific risk of SIDS in all except for those >3000 g is greater in singletons than in twins. There is no significant difference in risk of SIDS in like compared with unlike sex twins. Conclusions: In spite of a lower risk of SIDS in twins compared with singletons for each birth weight group <3000 g, one component of the higher crude relative risk of SIDS in twins is attributable to the higher proportion of twins that are of low birth weight. A second component is the higher risk in twins compared with singletons for those of birth weight >3000 g. Like sex are at no greater risk than unlike sex twins, which suggests that zygosity is not a significant factor in SIDS.

show abstract

“…2 They pointed out that the main explanatory variables for the difference between twin and singleton SIDS rates were gestational age and birth weight and that when these were accounted for in multivariate analysis the RR in their study dropped to 1.13. 1 We also showed much lower relative risks when gestational age differences were taken into account (Table 3). 2 At the highest gestational ages, there appeared to be some continuing excess risk in twins, but as they point out in their letter, that is likely to be due in part to more small-for-gestational age (SGA) babies in the twins born at term.…”

Section: To the Editormentioning

confidence: 82%