Statistics from Altmetric.com
The study of Platt and Pharaoh, confirms the increased risk of SIDS in twins compared with singletons.1 They point out that a major component of that higher accrued risk is that twins tend to be of low birthweight. Their finding that like-sex twins are at no greater risk than unlike-sex twins adds to the substantial evidence concerning the very limited role of genetic susceptibility for SIDS, and the rarity of recurrence in siblings of victims.2
The authors illustrate the gratifying fall in the number of SIDS during the six years of their 1990s study. As the number of infants categorised each year as SIDS in England and Wales comes nearer to that of 200, so it becomes more important for those involved in epidemiological studies to be sure that the categorisation (i.e. the diagnosis) is correct.
I refer to infants who, a few years after they have been categorised as SIDS, have been re-assessed, usually because of a subsequent child being abused or killed, and, in the course of court proceedings, findings are made that the previous infant(s) were killed by the parent, rather than dying of natural causes. Currently, there does not seem to be a mechanism for correcting the national childhood mortality statistics when later, correct diagnoses are made. For instance, in the 1990s, I am aware of at least 20 infants who were initially categorised as SIDS, but who in later years, after extensive child protection investigations, were deemed to have been killed, usually by smothering. Colleagues will know of other cases: the true number will be higher. It is unfortunate that the official statistics do not seem to be altered retrospectively, and remain a misleading figure for any research worker. I should add that, since none of the cases of parental killing of which I am aware involves twins, the conclusions of Platt and Pharoah are more likely to have been strengthened rather than weakened by such false diagnosis. However, as the number of SIDS continues to fall, it will become ever more difficult for research workers to compare small sub-groups of SIDS within national mortality statistics unless the statistics are revised retrospectively in response to later correct diagnosis.
It is appropriate to warn of an additional hazard for research workers in this field. In the same issue of Archives there was an interesting letter from epidemiologists in Paris concerning the possibility of vagal over-activity as a cause of sudden infant death.3 They referred to a “positive family history of SIDS”. A particular hazard there is that, unless details of that family history are verified in considerable detail, mistakes may be made. In recent years I have been involved with families in which parents who have repetitively smothered or killed children have provided to paediatricians, genetic counselling services, and to SIDS research workers, a false family history of SIDS—for instance, mother saying that two of her own siblings “died of SIDS”. Such statements invariably are taken at face value and become part of the medical history: they are included in family trees in the hospital notes, and they have been quoted and displayed in published research concerning SIDS, yet subsequent questioning of the relevant grandparent has revealed that no such infant deaths occurred. Presumably, the mother responsible for smothering or killing her child has invented the family history, either to gain more medical attention for herself, or as a cover to distract from her actions. A second reason for verifying the alleged previous infant deaths in more detail is that, even if a death has occurred, it is necessary to explore the extent of the contemporary investigation and pathological examination. In one of Professor Emery’s studies of infants initially categorised as SIDS, detailed re-assessment pointed to either a definite natural cause, or abuse, in two thirds of cases.4