A study reported in the Lancet identifies the risk of recurrence
(Carpenter et al, "Repeat sudden unexpected and unexplained infant
deaths", Lancet 2005 365(9453 pp 29-35). The best figure before that
study, from Norway, suggested that there was 5.8% recurrence of SIDS.
The figures in this study there say that of 6373 families with children
who died from unexplained or unexpected causes 57 second children died,
including nine inevitable deaths and 48 unexpected ones. 6 of the 48
were probably homicide. Of the other 40, 27 were definitely SIDS and 13
were unclassifiable.
In the total there were only 20 cases where both the first and second
deaths were unexplained. On the face of the matter, the chances of
having a second unexplained death appear to be 20 out of 6373, or one in
319, which is a long way from 1 in 75. I say "on the face of the
matter" because (a) I'm not sure how well the 6373, all referred for
support after SIDS, are selected and (b) all respondents were
participants in a specific programme and that may have changed results,
including medical monitoring and the quality of identification of
causes.
The RSS press release on Sally Clark is at
http://www.rss.org.uk/archive/reports/sclark.html . That press release
refers to the "prosecutor's fallacy" of considering the odds of
something happening at all, instead of considering the likelihood of it
being an unexplained double murder rather than double SIDS. The
researchers in the Lancet report believe that 18 were double SIDS cases
and 2 were double homicides. On that basis, if one compares the odds of
two SIDS deaths occurring against the odds of two unexplained murders,
it appears to be 18:2.
Paul Spicker
Professor of Public Policy
Centre for Public Policy and Management
Aberdeen Business School
The Robert Gordon University
Garthdee Road
Aberdeen AB10 7QE
Tel: (0) + 44 1224 26 3120
Fax: (0) + 44 1224 26 3434
Website: http://www.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy
The mission of The Robert Gordon University is "to inspire and enable
the transformation of individuals, economies and societies".
-----Original Message-----
From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Ray Thomas
Sent: 22 June 2005 13:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "Cot death expert faces disciplinary hearing"
The Guardian report states that 'twenty five years of research put the
risk
(of a second cot death) at one in 77. The Times report says the
correct
"odds" were nearer 75 to one.
Does anyone know the source of these figures or their theoretical basis?
Is anyone willing to defend them?
Ray Thomas
************
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All'
button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
*******************************************************
|