We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Comment & Response |

The Disappearance of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome ONLINE FIRST

Carl J. Schmidt, MD, MPH1
[+] Author Affiliations
1Chief Medical Examiner, Wayne County, Detroit, Michigan
JAMA Pediatr. Published online August 29, 2016. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.1811
Text Size: A A A
Published online


To the Editor Cutz’s Viewpoint1 “The Disappearance of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome: Has the Clock Turned Back?” contains misconceptions about forensic pathology and the investigation of sudden infant death. Forensic pathologists are not trained to seek out “causes of trauma and unnatural deaths, not to diagnose medical conditions.”1 Rather, they are pathologists first, with training in pediatric pathology as part of residency. The Office of the Wayne County Medical Examiner, with a medium to large volume, does between 200 and 240 postnatal autopsies of all kinds per year, many more than even large training programs, and is well versed in pediatric pathology. More than half of the case load is natural disease, not trauma, and often is rare and difficult to diagnose. That the diagnosis of sudden infant death syndrome is in decline is owing in large part to public health intervention, an effect described even before the American Academy of Pediatrics “Back to Sleep” campaign.2 Simple interventions such as washing hands to prevent flu transmission, washing wounds with soap and water, and using mosquito nets for malaria may not be sexy or get grant money, but they work. To say that advocacy groups that fund research and reform “death investigation practices” are disappearing is uninformed. There is still plenty of research going on, much of it confirming that these infants have no pathologic changes.3 Often, the research is meaningless and describes findings no one can reproduce. When one looks at the body of research in sudden infant death over the past 30 years and the different findings it has produced (both morphologic and physiologic) that have been described as potential explanations for these deaths, not a single one has proven to be pathognomonic or diagnostic. Dr Cutz is correct that the recommendations of the San Diego protocol4 are widely ignored, if not forgotten or unknown, because it is an abomination that legitimizes shoddy death scene investigation. I have never met someone who does basic research regarding an as-yet-undefined etiology in sudden infant death who actually also investigates these deaths. These investigations are a messy, often tedious endeavor. The significant decrease in sudden infant death syndrome over the past 20 years with the American Academy of Pediatrics “Back to Sleep” Campaign is an unchallenged public health success, achieved without an “etiologic” diagnosis.5 If nothing else, this demonstrates that the as-yet-undefined etiology is not the mystery that some people think. As in much in life, often the simplest explanation is best.


Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





August 29, 2016
Ernest Cutz, MD, FRCPC
1Baby’s Breath Foundation, St Catharines, Ontario, Canada2Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada3Division of Pathology, Department of Pediatric Laboratory Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
JAMA Pediatr. Published online August 29, 2016.;():. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.1782.
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...