We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Shaken baby syndrome (SBS), in its many guises (abusive head trauma, non-accidental injury, etc.) has been widely accepted and taught among paediatricians for more than 50 years. The central tenet of the hypothesis is that shaking can cause any or all of subdural haemorrhage (SDH), retinal haemorrhage (RH), and encephalopathy. These same pathologies are seen in normal newborn babies and infants after a range of insults, including trauma, and reflect the immature anatomy and pathophysiology of the infant brain and its covering membranes. Spinal damage is increasingly invoked to support the shaking diagnosis. This chapter examines the various brain, eye, and spinal pathologies claimed to be due to shaking, setting them in the context of the anatomy and specific vulnerabilities of the infant. We evaluate the empirical evidence that neuropathology can provide to support or refute these claims.
A systematic review by the SBU identified evidence gaps in diagnosing shaken baby syndrome. Population epidemiological studies, and clinical epidemiology, case-series and case-control studies, from Sweden, based on health registers (ICD-codes) and records for infants born 1997 to 2014, and forensic investigation, may add information to improve the diagnostic process of infant abuse. Our findings to date can be summarised as: perinatal exposure; small-for-gestational age, preterm, multiple birth, or male sex, increase the risk for SDH (subdural haemorrhage). Infants with chronic SDH more often had an abnormal increase in head circumference before or at the time of diagnosis. Intra- and inter-country differences in abuse diagnosis, and findings attributed to SBS/AHT indicate different prevailing practices and different interpretation of current understanding of injuries caused by abuse. A false-positive diagnosis of abuse is detrimental to the family. Further research on infant abuse, its circumstances and the specific findings indicative of abuse, is urgently needed to support evidence-based child protection, and to keep false positives and false negatives to a minimum.