Recent research and views on shaking baby syndrome

Traumatic shaking: The role of the triad in medical investigations of suspected traumatic shaking

The Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assesment of Social Services (SBU) is an independent national authority, tasked by the government with assessing methods used in health, medical and dental services and social service interventions from a broad perspective, covering medical, economic, ethical and social aspects. The language in SBU's reports are adjusted to a wide audience. SBU's Board of Directors has approved the conclusions in this report. The systematic review showed the following graded results: There is limited scientific evidence that the triad (Three components of a whole. The triad associated with SBS usually comprises subdural haematoma, retinal haemorrhages and encephalopathy.) and therefore, its components can be associated with traumatic shaking (low-quality evidence). There is insufficient scientific evidence on which to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the triad in identifying traumatic shaking (very low-quality evidence). Limited scientific evidence (low-quality evidence) represents a combined assessment of studies of high or moderate quality which disclose factors that markedly weaken the evidence. It is important to note that limited scientific evidence for the reliability of a method or an effect does not imply complete lack of scientific support. Insufficient scientific evidence (very low-quality evidence) represents either a lack of studies or situations when available studies are of low quality or show contradictory results. Evaluation of the evidence was not based on formal grading of the evidence according to GRADE but on an evaluation of the total scientific basis.

End-of-life decisions in abusive head trauma

Abusive head trauma is a significant and tragic cause of morbidity and mortality in infants and its victims often have a poor prognosis. With such high rates of morbidity and mortality, health care providers and parents are often faced with the decision to continue or discontinue life support for an affected child. Sadly, however, this decision becomes complicated when parents are accused of causing the victim-child's current state. In this situation, if life support is withdrawn, criminal charges for the accused may escalate from assault to murder. This escalation of legal charges creates a conflict of interest for accused parents. As a result, parents have a strong incentive to avoid murder charges by using their parental decision-making rights to keep the child alive, even when treatment is deemed futile or inhumane. In this article, we discuss the legal challenges health care providers may face when parents place their interest above their child's. We also propose solutions that give greater deference to the rights and interest of these critically ill children while still preserving protected parental rights.