Article

Infant sleeping position and the sudden infant death syndrome: Systematic review of observational studies and historical review of recommendations from 1940 to 2002

Centre for Evidence-based Child Health, Centre for Paediatric Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Child Health, 30 Guilford Street, London WC1N 1EH, UK.
International Journal of Epidemiology (Impact Factor: 9.2). 09/2005; 34(4):874-87. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyi088
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Before the early 1990s, parents were advised to place infants to sleep on their front contrary to evidence from clinical research.
We systematically reviewed associations between infant sleeping positions and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), explored sources of heterogeneity, and compared findings with published recommendations.
By 1970, there was a statistically significantly increased risk of SIDS for front sleeping compared with back (pooled odds ratio (OR) 2.93; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15, 7.47), and by 1986, for front compared with other positions (five studies, pooled OR 3.00; 1.69-5.31). The OR for front vs the back position was reduced as the prevalence of the front position in controls increased. The pooled OR for studies conducted before advice changed to avoid front sleeping was 2.95 (95% CI 1.69-5.15), and after was 6.91 (4.63-10.32). Sleeping on the front was recommended in books between 1943 and 1988 based on extrapolation from untested theory.
Advice to put infants to sleep on the front for nearly a half century was contrary to evidence available from 1970 that this was likely to be harmful. Systematic review of preventable risk factors for SIDS from 1970 would have led to earlier recognition of the risks of sleeping on the front and might have prevented over 10 000 infant deaths in the UK and at least 50 000 in Europe, the USA, and Australasia. Attenuation of the observed harm with increased adoption of the front position probably reflects a "healthy adopter" phenomenon in that families at low risk of SIDS were more likely to adhere to prevailing health advice. This phenomenon is likely to be a general problem in the use of observational studies for assessing the safety of health promotion.

0 Followers
 · 
106 Views
  • Source
    • "For example, a systematic review of observational studies examining the relationship between infant sleeping position and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) found an odds ratio (OR) of 4.1 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.1, 5.5) of SIDS occurring with front vs. back sleeping positions [1]. Furthermore, ''back to sleep'' campaigns that were started in the 1980s to encourage back sleeping position were associated with a relative decline in the incidence of SIDS by 50e70% in numerous countries [1]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The most common reason for rating up the quality of evidence is a large effect. GRADE suggests considering rating up quality of evidence one level when methodologically rigorous observational studies show at least a two-fold reduction or increase in risk, and rating up two levels for at least a five-fold reduction or increase in risk. Systematic review authors and guideline developers may also consider rating up quality of evidence when a dose-response gradient is present, and when all plausible confounders or biases would decrease an apparent treatment effect, or would create a spurious effect when results suggest no effect. Other considerations include the rapidity of the response, the underlying trajectory of the condition, and indirect evidence.
    Journal of clinical epidemiology 07/2011; 64(12):1311-6. DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.004 · 5.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A key mandate of the Canadian Thoracic Society (CTS) is to promote evidence-based respiratory care through clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). To improve the quality and validity of the production, dissemination and implementation of its CPGs, the CTS has revised its guideline process and has created the Canadian Respiratory Guidelines Committee to oversee this process. The present document outlines the basic methodological tools and principles of the new CTS guideline production process. Important features include standard methods for choosing and formulating optimal questions and for finding, appraising, and summarizing the evidence; use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system for rating the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations; use of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation instrument for quality control during and after guideline development and for appraisal of other guidelines; use of the ADAPTE process for adaptation of existing guidelines to the local context; and use of the GuideLine Implementability Appraisal tool to augment implementability of guidelines. The CTS has also committed to develop guidelines in new areas, an annual guideline review cycle, and a new formal process for dissemination and implementation. Ultimately, it is anticipated that these changes will have a significant impact on the quality of care and clinical outcomes of individuals suffering from respiratory diseases across Canada.
    Canadian respiratory journal: journal of the Canadian Thoracic Society 01/2009; 16(6):e62-8. · 1.66 Impact Factor
Show more

Preview

Download
0 Downloads
Available from