Arch Dis in England. 5.09 (95% CI 2.30 to Child 91 325 SIDS 11.27) (2): deaths and 1300 age and Author’s conclusions: locality The combined effects of Study type: matched SIDS risk factors in the Case control controls. sleeping environment and pre-term or Risk factor: Quality of low birth weight Being small study: generate high risks for at birth Generally well these infants. Their designed but longer postnatal stay Study no allows an opportunity Population: information to target parents and Sudden on how staff with risk reduction unexplained controls were messages. infants obtained or deaths < 1 cases notified Comment: Authors week > 1 to noted that very small year investigators. numbers of families Response rate from ethnic minorities Duration: for SIDS were included in the 1993 to cases 90%, study limiting 1996 no generalisation of the information findings to groups who on response may have different rate for cultural infant care controls. practices Of Findings: the SIDS infants, 26% were ‘‘small at birth’’ compared to 8% of the controls. The most common sleeping position was supine, for both controls (69%) and those SIDS infants (48%) born at term
Arch Dis Child 91 (2): Study type: Case control Risk factor: Being small at birth Study Population: Sudden unexplained infants deaths < 1 week > 1 year Duration: 1993 to 1996 in England. 325 SIDS deaths and 1300 age and locality matched controls. Quality of study: Generally well designed but no information on how controls were obtained or cases notified to investigators. Response rate for SIDS cases 90%, no information on response rate for controls. Findings: Of the SIDS infants, 26% were ‘‘small at birth’’ compared to 8% of the controls. The most common sleeping position was supine, for both controls (69%) and those SIDS infants (48%) born at term 5.09 (95% CI 2.30 to 11.27) Author’s conclusions: The combined effects of SIDS risk factors in the sleeping environment and pre-term or low birth weight generate high risks for these infants. Their longer postnatal stay allows an opportunity to target parents and staff with risk reduction messages. Comment: Authors noted that very small numbers of families from ethnic minorities were included in the study limiting generalisation of the findings to groups who may have different cultural infant care practices