False Controversy Regarding Abusive Head Trauma Endangers Vulnerable Children

Abstract

The diagnosis of AHT is not a controversial one, and the principal mechanism of AHT is shaking.• Absence of circular reasoning in diagnosing AHT has been confirmed by recent research that demonstrated clear differences between witnessed/admitted AHT and witnessed accidental head trauma. • False controversy regarding AHT and the flawed arguments used to sustain it should be ignored.

Editorial

“…This re-analysis found that crying remained the most common trigger, accounting for 51 per cent of cases, with revival attempts accounting for 37 per cent of cases and anger or frustration 12 per cent of cases. Edwards et al (2022) offer a firm rebuttal of this critique also published in this issue. They argue that the diagnosis of AHT is not a medically controversial one and that the principal mechanism of AHT is shaking, as demonstrated across multiple countries involving various models of jurisprudence.…”

“…Edwards et al (2022) offer a firm rebuttal of this critique also published in this issue. They argue that the diagnosis of AHT is not a medically controversial one and that the principal mechanism of AHT is shaking, as demonstrated across multiple countries involving various models of jurisprudence.…”

“…Additionally, research published in the interim robustly addresses the risk of circular reasoning and supports the diagnostic process for AHT (Boos et al, 2022; Hymel et al, 2022). Importantly, Edwards et al (2022) note that ‘false controversy’ puts children at risk of adverse outcomes and suggest that editors should be mindful of the risks of publishing flawed research that sustain such controversy. These are important points and, as editors, we are mindful of our responsibilities to both academic freedom and ethics and the need to balance both.…”

“…These are important points and, as editors, we are mindful of our responsibilities to both academic freedom and ethics and the need to balance both. The subject of AHT can be controversial, although as noted by Edwards et al (2022), such controversies can often focus on narrow definitional debates that serve to obscure rather than illuminate. In light of other recent submissions on this topic we have received, we have taken a decision that, when responding to papers that raise questions about the conduct and/or interpretation of findings previously published in the journal, we will only consider manuscripts that either: present 'original' research, such as primary research or research reviews which potentially call into question previous findings; papers which involve replication of previous review methods; or papers which involve reanalysis of primary data to reach different conclusions.…”