↓ Skip to main content

Why is a prone sleeping position dangerous for certain infants?

Overview of attention for article published in Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Why is a prone sleeping position dangerous for certain infants?
Published in
Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12024-017-9941-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roger W. Byard, Fiona Bright, Robert Vink

Abstract

The prone (face down) sleeping position is known to be associated with a significantly increased risk of sudden and unexpected death in infancy (sudden infant death syndrome or SIDS), however, the reasons for this are unclear. Suggested mechanisms have involved suffocation from occlusion of the external airways by soft bedding/pillows or from flattening of the nose with backward displacement of the tongue, rebreathing of carbon dioxide, blunting of arousal responses with decreased cardiac responses to auditory stimulation, diaphragmatic splinting or fatigue, lowering of vasomotor tone with tachycardia, nasopharyngeal bacterial overgrowth, overheating, alteration of sleep patterns, compromise of cerebral blood flow and upper airway obstruction from distortion of nasal cartilages. Recent studies have, however, shown a significant reduction in substance P in the inferior portion of the olivo-cerebellar complex in SIDS infants which is crucial for the integration of motor and sensory information for the control of head and neck movement. This deficit may explain why some infants are not able to move their faces away from potentially dangerous sleeping environments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 21%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 15 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Engineering 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 16 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 September 2020.
All research outputs
#7,347,192
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
#175
of 1,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,890
of 447,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology
#2
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 447,036 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.