SIDS paper : Ellipsis marks an important omission  

Oleh:

Webster, Richard

Jenis: Article from Journal - ilmiah internasional
Dalam koleksi: British Medical Journal (keterangan: ada di Proquest) vol. 334 no. 7583 (Jan. 2007), page 7.

Ketersediaan

Perpustakaan FK Nomor Panggil: B16.K.2007.04 Non-tandon: 1 (dapat dipinjam: 0) Tandon: tidak ada

Lihat Detail Induk

Isi artikel

Gornall, in his article about the paper by Carpenter et al on recurrent infant deaths,1 was right to argue that uncertain data should not be translated into statistics that seem clear cut. But his suggestion that a report by John Emery, the pathologist who initiated the Lancet study, upheld the ultra-suspiciousness of "Meadow's law" is curious. Emery produced the report for Sally Clark's defence in 1999, six months before his death.2 He wrote that in families where there were two cot deaths, a third were due to rare natural causes that had been missed at autopsy, and a third were unnatural deaths associated with abuse. The final third were "true" sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) in that "no suspicion of unnatural death was found and no natural cause was found." Although Emery's words make it clear that no basis for suspicion was found in two thirds of recurrent deaths, Gornall . . .

Opini Anda

Klik untuk menuliskan opini Anda tentang koleksi ini!

Kembali