| Title |
Unnatural causes of sudden unexpected deaths initially thought to be sudden infant death syndrome
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Legal Medicine, April 2005
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00414-005-0538-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
T. Bajanowski, M. Vennemann, M. Bohnert, E. Rauch, B. Brinkmann, E. A. Mitchell |
| Abstract |
The aim of this clinicopathological study was to determine the frequency of infant deaths due to unnatural causes among cases of sudden and unexpected infant death. Nine institutes of legal medicine in Germany that took part in the German study on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (GeSID), representing 35% of the German territory, investigated in a 3-year period (from 1998 to 2001) 339 cases of infant death that were not expected to be due to unnatural causes from the first external examination. All cases were investigated by complete, standardised, post-mortem examination including death scene investigation, autopsy, histology, toxicology and neuropathology. The frequency of unnatural deaths was 5.0% (n=17). The causes of death were head injury (n=7), suffocation (n=5), poisoning (n=2), neglect (n=2) and septicaemia due to aspiration of a foreign body (n=1). Two deaths were unsuspected accidents and 12 were due to infanticide. In 3 cases, it was not possible to differentiate between accidental death and infanticide. A complete postmortem examination including an analysis of the clinical history, death scene investigation, autopsy, histology, toxicology, and neuropathology is mandatory to differentiate sudden and unexpected deaths due to natural causes (e.g. SIDS) and cases of unnatural death. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 22% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 8 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 28% |
| Engineering | 5 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 23 November 2022.
All research outputs
#7,599,917
of 23,172,045 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#399
of 2,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,559
of 58,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Legal Medicine
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,172,045 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,096 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 58,829 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.