Using Death Certificates to Characterize Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS): Opportunities and Limitations
Received 20 January 2009; received in revised form 15 June 2009; accepted 7 July 2009. published online 27 September 2009.
Refers to article:
Impact of Sodium/Proton Exchanger 3 Gene Variants on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
, 23 September 2009
Micaela Poetsch, Bente J. Nottebaum, Lisa Wingenfeld, Stilla Frede, Mechtild Vennemann, Thomas Bajanowski
The Journal of Pediatrics
January 2010 (Vol. 156, Issue 1, Pages 44-48.e1) Abstract |
Full Text |
Full-Text PDF (574 KB)
Objective
To examine cause-of-death terminology written on death certificates for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and to determine the adequacy of this text data in more fully describing circumstances potentially contributing to SIDS deaths.
Study design
With 2003 and 2004 US mortality files, we analyzed all deaths that were assigned the underlying cause-of-death code for SIDS (R95). With the terminology written on the death certificates, we grouped cases into SIDS-related cause-of-death subcategories and then assessed the percentage of cases in each subcategory with contributory or possibly causal factors described on the certificate.
Results
Of the 4408 SIDS-coded deaths, we subcategorized 67.2% as “SIDS” and 11.0% as “sudden unexplained (or unexpected) infant death.” The terms “probable SIDS” (2.8%) and “consistent with SIDS” (4.6%) were found less frequently. Of those death certificates that described additional factors, “bedsharing or unsafe sleep environment” was mentioned approximately 80% of the time. Most records (79.4%) did not mention any additional factors.
Conclusion
Our death certificate analysis of the cause-of-death terminology provided a unique opportunity to more accurately characterize SIDS-coded deaths. However, the death certificate was still limited in its ability to more fully describe the circumstances leading to SIDS death, indicating the need for a more comprehensive source of SIDS data, such as a case registry.
aCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Reproductive Health, Atlanta, GA
bCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, MD
Reprint requests: Carrie K. Shapiro-Mendoza, PhD, MPH, Maternal and Infant Health Branch, Division of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mailstop K-23, 4770 Buford Highway NE, Atlanta, GA 30341-3717.
The findings and conclusions in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
ABSTRACT