Abstract：
Research on infants who have allegedly succumbed to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) has been of variable quality over the years. Even now peer-reviewed papers are being published on cases termed \'SIDS\' without autopsies having been performed, despite this being a requirement of the three major definitions for over five decades. Clearly cases used in earlier research studies could not have complied with the requirements of as-yet unpublished definitions/guidelines. For this reason care must be taken in citing initial papers as their results may have been skewed by the presence of non-SIDS cases. This may have particular relevance for meta analyses. Reviewing the literature on substance P and its relationship to SIDS provides an excellent example of how diametrically opposed conclusions were reached at different time points. Early studies on SIDS, and studies that use cases that were classified before the standard NICHD and San Diego definitions, should, therefore, be approached with a degree of scepticism and not cited in contemporary papers or at meetings as they have the potential to confuse rather than clarify.
摘要：
多年来，对据称死于婴儿猝死综合症（SIDS）的婴儿的研究质量参差不齐。即使是现在，同行评审的论文也在没有进行尸检的情况下发表，被称为“SIDS”。尽管这是超过五十年来三个主要定义的要求。显然，早期研究中使用的案例不可能符合尚未公布的定义/指南的要求。因此，在引用初步文件时必须小心，因为它们的结果可能因非小岛屿发展中国家案件的存在而有偏差。这可能与荟萃分析特别相关。回顾关于P物质及其与小岛屿发展中国家关系的文献，提供了一个很好的例子，说明在不同时间点如何得出截然相反的结论。对小岛屿发展中国家的早期研究，并研究了在标准NICHD和圣地亚哥定义之前分类的用例，应该，因此,以一定程度的怀疑态度对待，而不是在当代论文或会议上引用，因为它们有可能混淆而不是澄清。
