Aim

To determine how well definitions of SIDS in the literature are being cited and referenced.

Methods

The “PubMed” database was searched for “sudden infant death syndrome” from 2020-2021. Of 421 original papers, 50 were randomly selected and checked to determine whether one of the three internationally-accepted definitions of SIDS: Seattle, NICHD and San Diego definitions, had been cited/quoted in the text and correctly referenced. Papers that incorrectly cited, or did not cite one standard definitions were assigned into: (i) those that used mis-cited, idiosyncratic or other (alternative, nonstandard) definitions and, (ii) those where there was no definition.

Results

Fifty-six percent of papers correctly cited standard definitions, a 12% decrease from the 68% in a similar study in 2012. Of those only 22% both correctly cited/referenced one of the standard definitions. Major issues in 78% of papers involved citing one and referencing another standard definition (N=7, 14%), citing or referencing alternative, nonstandard definitions (N=8, 16%), or not citing or referencing any definition (N=24, 48%).

Conclusion

There is an increasing trend to not follow standard definitions of SIDS. This may hinder data interpretation where cases have not been appropriately defined and negatively impact upon the validity of SIDS research.