Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Aug 21;15(8):e0233253. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233253

Circumstances and factors of sleep-related sudden infancy deaths in Japan

Motoki Osawa 1,*, Yasuhiro Ueno 2, Noriaki Ikeda 3, Kazuya Ikematsu 4, Takuma Yamamoto 5, Wataru Irie 6, Shuji Kozawa 7, Hirokazu Kotani 8, Hideki Hamayasu 8, Takehiko Murase 4, Keita Shingu 4, Marie Sugimoto 2, Ryoko Nagao 1, Yu Kakimoto 1
Editor: Ju Lee Oei9
PMCID: PMC7444554  PMID: 32822352

Abstract

Background

Sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI) comprises both natural and unnatural causes of death. However, few epidemiological surveys have investigated SUDI in Japan.

Objective

This retrospective study was conducted to investigate the latest trends of circumstances and risk factors of SUDI cases in which collapse occurred during sleep.

Methods

Forensic pathology sections from eight universities participated in the selection of subjects from 2013 to 2018. Data obtained from the checklist form were analyzed based on information at postmortem.

Results

There were 259 SUDI cases consisting of 145 male infants and 114 female infants with a mean birth weight of 2888 ± 553 and 2750 ± 370 g, respectively. Deaths most frequently occurred among infants at 1 month of age (18%). According to population data as the control, the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of mother’s age ≤19 years was 11.1 (6.9–17.7) compared with ages 30–39. The odds ratio for the fourth- and later born infants was 5.2 (3.4–7.9) compared with the frequency of first-born infants. The most frequent time of day for discovery was between 7 and 8 o’clock, and the time difference from the last seen alive was a mean of 4.1 h. Co-sleeping was recorded for 61%, and the prone position was found for 40% of cases at discovery. Mother’s smoking habit exhibited an odds ratio of 4.5 (2.9–5.8).

Conclusion

This study confirmed the trends that have been observed for sudden infant death syndrome; particularly, very high odds ratios were evident for teenage mothers and later birth order in comparison with those in other developed countries. Neglect was suspected in some cases of the prolonged time to discovery of unreactive infants. To our knowledge, this is the first report of an extensive survey of SUDI during sleep in Japan.

Introduction

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is the possible cause-of-death for sudden infant death during sleep, in which all known identifiable conditions that might engender sudden and unexpected death must be excluded by postmortem examinations. However, several pathologists have changed their diagnostic preferences since 2004 primarily because of the difficult distinction of SIDS from accidental asphyxia or natural diseases such as arrhythmias and metabolic disorders. [13] Reluctance to use the term has decreased the number globally over the years. [46] In Japan, around 0.4 per 1,000 livebirths (LBs) of annual SIDS rate was recorded in the 1990s [7], but recent diagnostic numbers have decreased to fewer than 0.1. [8]

Currently, another broad term has become popular as an alternative to a final SIDS decision, i.e., sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI) or sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) in an apparently healthy infant presenting at 7–365 days of age. Although SUDI/SUID originally has been used as an umbrella term for the initial presentation of explained or unexplained infant deaths, it is interpreted to include several categories such as SIDS (R95), ill-defined and unknown cause of mortality (R99), where the investigation, death scene examination, autopsy findings were limited or incomplete. Unintentional threat to breathing (W75-W84) to include sudden death in infants, with bed/sleep surface sharing, soft bedding, or prone sleep, without adequate evidence for airway obstruction or chest wall compression, are insufficient to certify a death as due to asphyxia. [9] Shapiro-Mendoza et al. [10] demonstrate a decision-making algorithm for assigning SUID case registry.

In recent years, a protocol of investigation items has been standardized. [11,12] For instance, in the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published guidelines and a reporting form, which is designated as the SUID Investigation Reporting Form. [13] In Japan, a list of items to be investigated is used as a similar checklist form in cases of infant death. [14] A system is in operation for clinicians and pathologists to ascertain circumstances and to investigate background factors. Information from death scene investigation (DSI) acquired by experts is indispensable to fill out the form. [15] Furthermore, the maternity passbook, which records information about the mother and the child during pregnancy as well as after childbirth, is beneficial. We previously analyzed forensic autopsy cases of sudden infant deaths after vaccination using this passbook. [16]

While the childcare environment differs according to region and time, there are few epidemiological data describing infant deaths during sleep in Japan. [17] Takatsu et al. [18] exhibited the trends of SUID cases from 1982 to 2006. This population-based retrospective study was conducted to investigate the latest trends of sleep-related SUDI cases using the checklist form including the maternity passbook at multiple centers.

Methods

Sleep-related SUDI cases were recruited from autopsy files for the period of 6 years from 2013 to 2018 to obtain sufficient number of cases for adequate statistical power. Inclusion criteria for cases were age not less than 1 week and not more than 12 months, and the collapse occurring during sleep in an unexpected manner. Based on the cause and manner of death, infant deaths were grouped as follows: (1) infants who died of SIDS, (2) infants who died of other natural diseases, (3) infants who died of accidental injuries, (4) infants who died of non-accidental injuries, and (5) infants with undetermined manner of death classified under R99, W74-84. [19] In this study, we selected cases of groups (1) and (5) and those of suspected accidental suffocation during sleep.

Postmortem examinations included histology, toxicology, biochemistry, virology, and bacteriology. [20,21] Tests for assessing inherited metabolic disorders were conducted nationwide in the routine examination for newborns. [22] Genetic testing for arrhythmic disorders was also conducted for cases examined in this study. [23] Data used for analysis consisted of DSI information, therapeutic information in emergency care, and maternity passbook. The checklist form, consisting of 41 items, was filled in initially by each center. Then the lists were transferred to one site to confirm unclear issues and aggregate the data.

The forensic pathology sections of the following eight universities participated in this study: Kitasato University School of Medicine, Mie University School of Medicine, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Hyogo College of Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Graduate School of Medical Science Kyushu University, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences Nagasaki University, and Tokai University School of Medicine. The areas of these facilities cover six prefectures without regional bias in the country. Further, the area of coverage for these institutions comprised approximately 14% of where the entire population resides, and this percentage was applied to approximate the annual rate per 1000 LBs in the area served by the institutions as 14 per cent of the national population birth rate. Every sudden infant death had been autopsied, but there could have been some deaths that had not received autopsy outside domestic forensic service centers in Japan, whose exact number remained unknown. The principal investigator obtained approval for this retrospective study from the Institutional Review Board for Clinical Research, Tokai University. This study was also approved by the respective ethical committees of the faculties as a collaborative study. All data were fully anonymized before the analyzing investigators accessed them. The study protocol was disclosed to the public at the website.

The number of 263 cases were originally registered to this project. We checked each candidate case carefully at a meeting, and selected subjects in which terminal events remained at speculation irrespective of the diagnosis in the death certificate. Among them, 4 cases were eliminated from the reasons of not found in sleep environment (n = 3) and expected course of terminal heart failure (n = 1). The original causes of death (n = 259) were SIDS in 94 cases (36%), undetermined (R99) in 75 cases (29%), potential asphyxia in bed in 51 cases (20%), and SUDI with other natural causes in 39 cases (15%) where the causes were not fatal in itself and there was co-sleeping as a risk factor. Suspected causes of asphyxia were supposed to be due to accidental overlay and choking of milk in bed. Inflammation of the airway, including bronchitis, accounted for 22 cases, comprising the largest group among “others.” Pathological findings do not always reflect the terminal event. Pathologists tend to favor any apparent histological findings as the cause of death whether it was fatal or not. Despite of such histological evidence, the pathologists reconsidered that these cases might also be regarded as sleep-related SUDI because of co-sleeping, in which coexistent factors may have served as contributors in causing death.

Since we had too small number of non-SUDI cases that were suitable for the control, we used local population data approximated from national population data as a substitute for the control cases in a comparison with the present data. The statistical data of LBs recorded during 2013–2018 in the Japanese population at the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research were used as the control. [8] Prevalence information of regular tobacco consumption was available at Japan Tobacco Inc. as a questionnaire survey performed in 2016 (https://www.jti.co.jp/investors/press_releases/2016/0728_01.html). The numbers of smokers and nonsmokers in the 20s and 30s of female volunteers were used for the control.

Logistic regression analyses based on population data were performed to determine the associations of independent variables as estimated using the odds ratio and confidence interval (CI). For significant differences, the p value was calculated using chi-square tests. Statistical analyses were conducted using BellCurve in Excel, ver. 3.20 (Social Survey Research Information Co., Tokyo, Japan).

Results

A total of 259 cases were collected at multiple centers for the 6-year period. The circumstances and factors were investigated using the checklist form filled with information at postmortem.

The annual frequency of SUDI during sleep was estimated to approximately 0.31 per 1000 LBs. However, the value could be slightly underestimated because of the possibility that some cases could have been out of management by these facilities.

Table 1 presents the number of subjects according to sex, birth weight, gestation week, maternal age, parity and maternal smoking habit along with the population data. Table 2 summarizes the odds ratios (95% CI) and p values in terms of the related factors.

Table 1. Number of SUDI subjects and LBs.

Factors No. (%) of SUDI No. (%) of LBs* Approx. annual rate per 1000 LBs**
Sex
 Male 145 (56%) 3,015,822 (51%) 0.34
 Female 114 (44%) 2,864,653 (49%) 0.28
 Total 259 (100%) 5,880,475 (100%) 0.31
Birth weight: Male
 < 2,500 21 (15%) 252,678 (8%) 0.59
 ≥ 2,500 116 (85%) 2,762,747 (92%) 0.30
 Total 137 (100%) 3,015,425 (100%) 0.32
Birth weight: Female
 < 2,500 23 (21%) 304,624 (11%) 0.54
 ≥ 2,500 85 (79%) 2,559,683 (89%) 0.24
 Total 108 (100%) 2,864,307 (100%) 0.27
Gestation week
 < 37 31 (13%) 324,829 (6%) 0.68
 ≥ 37 203 (87%) 5,546,995 (94%) 0.26
 Total 234 (100%) 5,871,824 (100%) 0.28
Maternal age at delivery (years)
 ≤ 19 21 (9%) 67,675 (1%) 2.22
 20–24 63 (26%) 500,757 (9%) 0.90
 25–29 58 (24%) 1,538,223 (26%) 0.27
 30–34 53 (22%) 2,124,833 (36%) 0.18
 35–39 43 (17%) 1,335,169 (23%) 0.23
 40–44 7 (3%) 305,543 (5%) 0.16
 ≥ 45 0 8,268 (0%)
 Total 245 (100%) 5,880,468 (100%) 0.30
Parity
 1 77 (31%) 2,745,441 (47%) 0.20
 2 93 (38%) 2,145,351 (37%) 0.31
 3 46 (19%) 760,283 (13%) 0.43
 4 20 (8%) 157,536 (3%) 0.91
 ≥ 5 10 (4%) 50,823 (1%) 1.41
 Total 246 (100%) 5,859,434 (100%) 0.30
Maternal Smoking habit
 Non-smoker 106 (66%) 1,983 (89%) -
 Smoker 55 (34%) 254 (11%) -
 Total 161 (100%) 2,237 (100%)

*: Japanese population data represent the sum of LBs during 2013 to 2018.

**: The annual rate is calculated by no. of SUDI / (no. of national LB × 0.14)

Table 2. Odds ratios (95% CI) and p values of SUDI cases to population data.

Factors Odds ratio p value
Sex
 Male 1.2 (0.9–1.5) p = .13
 Female (ref. group) 1.0
Birth weight; Male
 < 2,500 2.0 (1.3–3.2) p < .01
 ≥ 2,500 (ref. group) 1.0
Birth weight; Female
 < 2,500 2.3 (1.4–3.6) p < .001
 ≥ 2,500 (ref. group) 1.0
Gestation week
 < 37 2.6 (1.8–3.8) p < .001
 ≥ 37 (ref. group) 1.0
Maternal age at delivery (years)
 ≤ 19 11.1 (6.9–17.7) p < .001
 20–29 2.1 (1.6–2.8) p < .001
 30–39 (ref. group) 1.0
 ≥ 40 0.8 (0.4–1.7) p = .56
Parity
 1 (ref. group) 1.0
 2–3 1.7 (1.3–2.3) p < .001
 ≥ 4 5.1 (3.4–7.8) p < .001
Maternal smoking habit
 Non-smoker (ref. group) 1.0
 Smoker 4.1 (2.9–5.8) p < .001

Age

Fig 1 shows the age distribution at the time of death. It was observed that deaths most frequently occurred in infants at 1 month of age, consisting of 45 cases (18%). The number was found to decrease with age. Deaths occurring within 6 months after birth accounted for 180 cases (72%).

Fig 1. Age distribution of SUDI infants during sleep (n = 259) examined in this study.

Fig 1

Key indicates the birth order of infants, in which the column is divided into four groups of the first-born infants (blank), the second- and third-born ones (gray), more than the fourth-born ones (black), and unknown ones (diagonal).

Birth weight and gestation weeks

The mean (± S.D.) birth weight of SUDI infants was 2885 ± 556 g for male subjects (n = 137) and 2763 ± 466 g for female subjects (n = 108). These birth weights were lower by 191 g (6%) and 227 g (8%), respectively, than the national mean birth weights of 3076 g for males and 2990 g for females recorded in 2017. The incidence of low birth weight infants was significantly higher than the control group in both sexes. For low birth weight infants, the odds ratio of over 2.0 was observed in both the male and female groups. Infants of premature birth were found to be 2.6 times more likely to die from SUDI than those of mature birth.

Maternal age and birth order

The odds ratio of incidence of infant death of mothers whose age ≤19 years was the highest at 11.1 compared with mothers aged 30–39 years, and that for mothers aged 20–29 years was 2.1, which showed significant differences. This finding indicated that mothers of a younger age, especially teenage, should be considered as the most important risk factor for the occurrence of SUDI during sleep.

In terms of the birth-order distribution, there were 31% of first-born infants, 38% of second-born infants, 19% of third-born infants, 8% of fourth-born infants, 2% (6 cases) of fifth-born infants, 1% (3 cases) of sixth-born infants, and 0.4% (1 case) of seventh-born infant. The odds ratio to the fatal frequency among the first-born infants clearly indicated that later birth order constituted an important risk factor. Moreover, as shown in Fig 1, there were more first-born infant deaths within 2 months in age (38/92) than those after 3 months (39/154) (p < 0.001).

Time of discovery and sleeping position

Fig 2A shows the distribution of the time of day when an unresponsive infant was found. There were 30 cases (12%) found between 7 and 8 o’clock a.m., which was the most frequent time. A large peak was evident between 6 and 9 o’clock in the morning.

Fig 2. Time of discovery.

Fig 2

A. Distribution of the time of the day at which the first responder found an unresponsive infant (n = 246); B. the time difference between the time the infant was last seen alive and first found deceased (n = 222).

Fig 2B depicts that the duration between the last time the infant was found alive and the time of discovery of being unresponsive (n = 222), which varied widely from approximately 10 min to 13 h. The mean duration was 4.1±2.7 h. The collapse was discovered within 6 h in the majority of cases (n = 184, 83%).

The first responder (n = 252), who discovered the unresponsive infant, was the mother in 188 cases (75%), followed by the father in 49 cases (19%), a grandmother in 8 cases (3%), a childminder in 2 cases (1%), and others in 6 cases (2%).

Co-sleeping was recorded for 143 cases (61%) among a total of 230 available cases. Table 3 presents the child sleeping position when the collapse was discovered. The prone position in late SUDI infants accounted for 40% of cases, and there were 19% of cases with the prone position even in 0 to 2-month-old subjects who cannot roll over.

Table 3. Sleep position at the scene.

Position Total (0–11 month) 0–2 month 3–11 month
Supine 117 (52%) 60 (72%) 57 (40%)
Prone 89 (40%) 16 (19%) 73 (52%)
Side 16 (7%) 7 (9%) 9 (6%)
Others 2 (1%) 0 2 (1%)
Total 224 (100%) 83 (100%) 141 (100%)

Maternal smoking habit

The descriptions in the maternity passbook entries are considered to reflect the smoking habits before and during the early phase of pregnancy. We attempted to obtain the smoking rate of the mothers of SUDI cases. A significant risk of SUDI was evident with an odds ratio of 4.5 compared with the general rate. The mean number of cigarettes was 11 cigarettes/day (n = 30).

Discussion

Since we had a small number of control cases that were suitable for a case-control study, the national population data was used as a substitute for the reference. In addition, there was a limitation that data were not fully available for each item because of the retrospective approach. Whilst the analysis might be accompanied by some imprecision, high odd ratios were evident in low birth weight, premature birth, teenage mothers, later birth order infants and maternal smoking habit.

These results of the present investigation of sleep-related SUDI cases were consistent with risk factors such the smoking habit of parents in the large epidemiological surveys of SIDS. [24] However, some differences were evident. The peak age of death is generally 2 months in SIDS surveys, [4,25] but that among the present SUDI infants was 1 month of age. We thought that the difference should be caused by that a particularly higher risk was evident among teenage mothers than that found in an earlier study [26], and that more first-born infants had died during 0–2 months of age.

The most frequent birth order associated with infant death due to SUDI during sleep was the second birth order. Blair et al. [27] reported that SIDS was most frequent among first-born children in the UK, although it was earlier presumed to be frequent in large families. Data from Taiwan indicate that the first-, second-, and third- and later born children account for 36%, 40%, and 24% of SIDS, respectively. [28] The distribution in the present study was more similar to that reported in Taiwan.

Traditional bedding of cotton mat, known as futon, on the floor is common in Japan. Therefore, it is more appropriate to use the term co-sleeping (sharing a sleeping surface) than bed-sharing. Such co-sleeping is a common style of sleep. Tokutake et al. [17] reported that 84% of mothers practice co-sleeping, of whom half also practice breastfeeding. The father was found to be the first responder in up to 20% of cases, and in most of these cases the father also co-slept and discovered the infant death upon awakening. The risk of SIDS among infants who co-sleep was found to be significantly high in several earlier studies. [29,30] In addition, the higher incidence could be related to the inclusion of infants who had associated natural disease as cause of death but included in this study if there was co-sleeping. Nevertheless, the effects of co-sleeping on the occurrence of SUDI, if any, could not be evaluated in this study because of a variety of co-sleeping styles and the absence of good control subjects.

It is a traditional practice in Japan to lay infants in the supine position. However, 40% of infants were found in the prone position, of which frequency was higher than that reported in an earlier study. [17] Li et al. [31] reported that 60% of SIDS infants were found in the prone position in the United States. It is possible that turning over by infants during sleep is a causal factor. However, approximately 28% of 0 to 2-month-old infants who were unable to turn over were found in the prone and side positions. They might have been placed in the prone position or been breastfed during co-sleeping, but the original position was not recorded sufficiently at DSI.

A striking finding was the prolonged time to discovery. In nine cases, it spent more than 10 hours to find the unreactive infants. No apparent infanticide was involved in all subjects, however neglect by parents was suspected in a couple of cases from circumstances at DSI. We think that the time difference should be an important indicator to suspect careless infant rearing.

A relationship between the occurrence of SIDS and the smoking habit of parents has been found in Japan. [32] In the present investigation, the incidence of pregnant mother’s smoking among SUDI cases was 34% despite of the limited number of subjects. This incidence in the general female population was reported as 11%, which also resulted in the high odds ratio of 4.5 in this study. According to Anderson et al., [33] the incidence of SUDI more than doubles when a parent is smoking during the period of pregnancy. The odds ratio increases along with the number of cigarettes up to 20. It is evident that infants co-sleeping with someone who smokes exhibit the highest risk for SUDI. [34]

Pasquale-Styles et al. [35] reported that asphyxia and suffocation occur more than presumed in many situations such as bed-sharing, overlay, wedging, prone position, obstruction of the nose and mouth, and coverage of the head. Postmortem findings alone are not generally sufficient to explain the cause of these deaths. Consequently, the diagnoses often lack consistency. [3,4] To avoid preventable any types of SUDI, including SIDS, such various causes of accidental suffocation, and unexplained causes, it is important to identify high risk factors from the study based on the wide variety of cases. [18] In addition, there exists a difficulty of the current situation in Japan, particularly in DSI that is performed by police officers who are not well trained. Although DSI was performed by the police for all present cases, not all items were optimal, particularly, for the sleep environment such as sleep surface, wrapping, and clothing Garstang et al. [25] indicated that police-led DSI does not comply with practical information. After a new law related to child health was enacted in 2018, child death reviews will be introduced to the society in the near future. These reviews in combination with multiple agencies will be helpful in investigating the sleeping environments of infants in detail.

In conclusion, we conducted an effective epidemiological analysis of sleep-related SUDI using the checklist form. This approach has revealed the present critical features prevailing in the country. This report displayed the latest trends of SUDI in Japan.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Tomohiro Nozima for his extensive support like inputting the large data and mailing.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

M.O. received Grants-in-Aid from the Health, Labour and Welfare Sciences Research Grants, Japan (grant no. H29-Sukoyaka-001).

References

  • 1.Krous HF, Beckwith JB, Byard RW, Rognum TO, Bajanowski T, Corey T, et al. Sudden infant death syndrome and unclassified sudden infant deaths: a definitional and diagnostic approach. Pediatrics. 2004;114:234–238. 10.1542/peds.114.1.234 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Malloy MH, MacDorman M. Changes in the classification of sudden unexpected infant deaths: United States, 1992–2001. Pediatrics. 2005;115:1247–1253. 10.1542/peds.2004-2188 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Camperlengo LT, Shapiro-Mendoza CK, Kim SY. Sudden infant death syndrome: diagnostic practices and investigative policies, 2004. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2012;33:197–201. 10.1097/PAF.0b013e3181fe33bd [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Moon RY. Task Force on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. SIDS and other sleep related infant deaths: expansion of recommendations for a safe infant sleeping environment. Pediatrics. 2011;128:1030–1039. 10.1542/peds.2011-2284 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Fleming PJ, Blair PS, Pease A. Sudden unexpected death in infancy: aetiology, pathophysiology, epidemiology and prevention in 2015. Arch Dis Child. 2015;100:984–988. 10.1136/archdischild-2014-306424 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Matthews TJ, MacDorman MF, Thoma ME. Infant mortality statistics from the 2013 period linked birth/infant death data set. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2015;64:1–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Funayama M, Tokudome S, Matsuo Y. Autopsy cases of sudden unexpected infant deaths examined at the Tokyo medical examiner’s office, 1964–1993. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 1996;17:32–37. 10.1097/00000433-199603000-00005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.The Japanese population at the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research. http://www.ipss.go.jp/p-info/ Accessed 2 Nov 2019.
  • 9.Goldstein RD, Blair PS, Sens MA, Shapiro-Mendoza CK, Krous HF, Rognum TO, et al. Inconsistent classification of unexplained sudden deaths in infants and children hinders surveillance, prevention and research: recommendations from the 3rd International Congress on Sudden Infant and Child Death. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2019;15:622–628. 10.1007/s12024-019-00156-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Shapiro-Mendoza CK, Camperlengo L, Ludvigsen R, Cottengim C, Anderson RN, Andrew T, et al. Classification system for the Sudden Unexpected Infant Death Case Registry and its application. Pediatrics. 2014;134:e210–9. 10.1542/peds.2014-0180 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Corey TS, Hanzlick R, Howard J, Nelson C, Krous H. A functional approach to sudden unexplained infant deaths. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2007;28:271–277. 10.1097/01.paf.0000257385.25803.cf [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bennett T, Martin LJ, Heathfield LJ. Global trends in the extent of death scene investigation performed for sudden and unexpected death of infant (SUDI) cases: A systematic review. Forensic Sci Int. 2019;301:435–444. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.06.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sudden Unexplained Infant Death Investigation Reporting Form 2007. www.cdc.gov/sids/pdf/suidiform2-1-2010.pdf. Accessed 1 Nov 2019.
  • 14.Guideline for SIDS diagnosis, ver. 2. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan. (in Japanese), 2012. http://www.mhlw.go.jp/bunya/kodomo/sids_guideline.html of subordinate document. Accessed 2 Nov 2019.
  • 15.Erck Lambert AB, Parks SE, Camperlengo L, Cottengim C, Anderson RL, Covington TM, et al. Death scene investigation and autopsy practices in sudden unexpected infant deaths. J Pediatr. 2016;174:84–90. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.03.057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Osawa M, Nagao R, Kakimoto Y, Kakiuchi Y, Satoh F. Sudden infant death after vaccination: Survey of forensic autopsy files. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2019;40:232–237. 10.1097/PAF.0000000000000494 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Tokutake C, Haga A, Sakaguchi K, Samejima A, Yoneyama M, Yokokawa Y, et al. Infant suffocation incidents related to co-sleeping or breastfeeding in the side-lying position in Japan. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2018; 246:121–130. 10.1620/tjem.246.121 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Takatsu A, Shigeta A, Sakai K, Abe S. Risk factors, diagnosis and prevention of sudden unexpected infant death. Leg Med. 2007;9:76–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Matthews T, McDonnell M, McGarvey C, Loftus G, O’Regan M. A multivariate "time based" analysis of SIDS risk factors. Arch Dis Child. 2004;89:267–271. 10.1136/adc.2002.025486 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Howatson AG. The autopsy for sudden unexpected death in infancy. Curr Diagn Pathol. 2006;12:173–183. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kakimoto Y, Seto Y, Ochiai E, Satoh F, Osawa M. Cytokine elevation in sudden death with respiratory syncytial virus: A Case Report of 2 Children. Pediatrics. 2016;138:e20161293 10.1542/peds.2016-1293 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yamamoto T, Mishima H, Mizukami H, Fukahori Y, Umehara T, Murase T, et al. Metabolic autopsy with next generation sequencing in sudden unexpected death in infancy: Postmortem diagnosis of fatty acid oxidation disorders. Mol Genet Metab Rep. 2015;5:26–32. 10.1016/j.ymgmr.2015.09.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Osawa M, Inaoka Y, Ochiai E, Hasegawa I, Satoh F. Variable single C repetitive tract in KCNQ1: Postmortem molecular testing in a sudden and unexpected death. Exp Clin Cardiol. 2014;20:927–930. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Moon RY, Hauck FR. Risk Factors and Theories In: Duncan JR, Byard RW, editors. SIDS Sudden Infant and Early Childhood Death: The Past, the Present and the Future. Adelaide (AU): University of Adelaide Press; 2018. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Garstang J, Ellis C, Sidebotham P. An evidence-based guide to the investigation of sudden unexpected death in infancy. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2015;11:345–357. 10.1007/s12024-015-9680-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Colson ER, Willinger M, Rybin D, Heeren T, Smith LA, Lister G, et al. Trends and factors associated with infant bed sharing, 1993–2010: the National Infant Sleep Position Study. JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167:1032–1037. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.2560 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Blair PS, Sidebotham P, Berry PJ, Evans M, Fleming PJ. Major epidemiological changes in sudden infant death syndrome: a 20-year population-based study in the UK. Lancet. 2006;367:314–319. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)67968-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chang HP, Li CY, Chang YH, Hwang SL, Su YH, Chen CW. Sociodemographic and meteorological correlates of sudden infant death in Taiwan. Pediatr Int. 2013;55:11–16. 10.1111/j.1442-200X.2012.03723.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hauck FR, Herman SM, Donovan M, Iyasu S, Merrick Moore C, Donoghue E, et al. Sleep environment and the risk of sudden infant death syndrome in an urban population: the Chicago Infant Mortality Study. Pediatrics. 2003;111:1207–1214. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Blair PS, Sidebotham P, Pease A, Fleming PJ. Bed-sharing in the absence of hazardous circumstances: is there a risk of sudden infant death syndrome? An analysis from two case-control studies conducted in the UK. PLoS One. 2014; 9:e107799 10.1371/journal.pone.0107799 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Li L, Fowler D, Liu L, Ripple MG, Lambros Z, Smialek JE. Investigation of sudden infant deaths in the State of Maryland (1990–2000). Forensic Sci Int. 2005; 148:85–92. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.01.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Tanaka T, Kato N. Evaluation of child care practice factors that affect the occurrence of sudden infant death syndrome: Interview conducted by public health nurses. Environ Health Prev Med. 2001;6:117–120. 10.1007/BF02897957 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Anderson TM, Lavista Ferres JM, Ren SY, Moon RY, Goldstein RD, Ramirez JM, et al. Maternal smoking before and during pregnancy and the risk of sudden unexpected infant death. Pediatrics. 2019;143:e20183325 10.1542/peds.2018-3325 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.James C, Klenka H, Manning D. Sudden infant death syndrome: bed sharing with mothers who smoke. Arch Dis Child. 2003;88:112–113. 10.1136/adc.88.2.112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Pasquale-Styles MA, Tackitt PL, Schmidt CJ. Infant death scene investigation and the assessment of potential risk factors for asphyxia: a review of 209 sudden unexpected infant deaths. J Forensic Sci. 2007;52:924–929. 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2007.00477.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ju Lee Oei

5 Jun 2020

PONE-D-20-12699

Circumstances and factors of sleep-related sudden infant deaths in Japan

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Osawa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process from the reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 20 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ju Lee Oei

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In the ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the patient records used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

3.  We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper describes the recent status of sudden unexpected death in infancy (SUDI) using the data obtained by a postmortem check in Japan. The study design was a retrospective case-control method. The authors analyzed 259 SUDI cases during 2013-2018 registered in 8 different universities. They found that SUDI most frequently occurred among infants at 1 month of age and significant associations with the infants born to mothers at their teenage, later born infants, and a smoking habit of a mother. They also mentioned possible associations with co-sleeping and prone positioning during sleep. Thus, the study is very important, however, the results from this study are weakened due to the lack of appropriate control subjects. Furthermore, the eligibility and selection criteria of sleep-related SUDI infants among all SUDI infants were not clear in the manuscript.

Major comments.

1 Clarify the relationship between SUDI and sleep-related SUDI in Abstract and Manuscript.

2 Method line 89. Explain why the study period of 2013-2018 was selected.

3 Method lone 90-96 and 120-129. Explain the selection and classification methods of the study subjects precisely. Not clear even how many SUDI were registered totally. When and who decided? How to get a final agreement among investigators? Any audit by the third party? This is the most important point of this study.

4 Method line 127. Is this stipulation feasible? Need more explanation.

5 Method line 111 and 130-132. If this study covered only 14% of the total population in Japan, it would be hard to say “population based” (line 40). Rather say “regional investigation”.

6 Method line 130-132. It would be better to use the population background of the prefectures where 8 universities belong to.

7 Results Table 2 line 162-163. Were these odds ratios adjusted against the background distributions of the control?

8 Results the same as above. Explain why the early group consists of 0-2 months of age.

9 Discussion. Summarize key results without repeating the data already mentioned in Results.

10 Discussion. Better to make a paragraph of limitations of the study with potential bias or imprecision.

11 Discussion line 250-252. Be careful about this interpretation because of the lack of control subjects.

Minor comments

1 Discussion lines 279 and 286. The authors said the DSI was not reliable while the checklist was an official, very confusing description.

2 Better to show a flow diagram of subjects.

Reviewer #2: This study seeks to study sleep related SUDI in Japanese infants and has successfully collected data from a large area in Japan over 6 years.

The authors have attempted to look at known risk factors from other preceding studies but the study could be improved with further details on social and family demographics, maternal education, breastfeeding status if available. Some of the objectives of this study could be to look at prevention of sleep related SUDI and improving investigation and documentation of DSI in Japan.

Some more specific comments :

Line 61. it might be easier to make a international comparison by giving rates instead of numbers per year, e.g.if rates of SIDS are given as 0.15 per 1000 livebirths

Line 73. Good that Japan has a SIDS investigation form - is it used for by the death scene investigation team or forensic pathologists? The authors might want to mention that it is similar to CDC SUDI investigation form since it is in Japanese.

Line 79. It would be interesting as an introduction to mention incidence of SUDI in Japan (0.4(?) per 1000 livebirths from Taylor et al's study) and any findings of sleep related SUDI from previous studies such as ref 17 or from using the DSI form, since that is the authors' major focus, rather than a mention of vaccination related SUDI

Line 88. The authors' case definition included infants 0-365 days. According to most definitions, unexpected deaths in infants under 7 days of age are excluded from the SUDI category, and instead have been termed “sudden unexpected early neonatal death (SUEND)”. It would be interesting to know how many infants in the study were actually below 7 days of age to see if it would impact the findings related to early or late SUDI.

Line 134 - alignment of words (for editor)

Line 157, do the authors mean the later group is in where death occurred at or after 3 months of age .. . What about the infants of 2 months plus to 3 months of age if the later group is AFTER 3 months of age and Early group is within 2 months of age (<= 2 months old). Do the authors mean "below 3 months of age" ?

From the existing literature, the age groups are usually neonatal SUDI (i.e. below 28 days , approximately 1 month of age) and after the neonatal period. Is it an empirical decision or to take into account the preterm babies ?

Line 159 Table 1. "SUDI" is used in the text but "SUID" is used in the Table, suggest to use one term only for consistency. Suggest to add 'livebirths' to become "Approx annual (incidence) rate per 1000 livebirths(LB) "

Line 179 - Is it the annual incidence rate of SUDI in low birth weight infants being significantly higher rather than the "percentage", the latter which is not shown in table 1

Line 223 Table 3 - typo Supine

Statistical analysis :

Please excuse me if my understanding of the analysis is incorrect ...

Table 1 -

1.the annual rate per 1000 LB for male infants would be [145*1000/no. of LB (in the 6 years) ] divided by 6 = 0.008 and so forth for the other variables. It may also not be necessary to have an annual incidence but just an overall incidence over the 6 years since the annual rate is very low

2. Line 190 and 191 - I am not sure if the number of early SUDI in one age group compared to early SUDI in the rest of the population can be used in chi squared calculation against total SUDI population- should it instead be compared with non event population in the same age group ?

Line 255. The effects of co-sleeping could not be evaluated but perhaps more details if available could be described under findings? Was there any related to wedging, inadvertent suffocation especially in co-sleeping cases ? Or to mention Line 280 ..."not well trained in documentation".

Discussion - Some comment re missing data would be helpful , 14 cases missing in gender , 25 cases in gestation and more than half cases had missing data on maternal smoking - how it may affect the reliability of the data esp with regards to smoking , although this is a known risk factor in sleep related SUDI. Sleeping position was missing in 35 cases. These are understandable given the retrospective nature of the study - so a comment may be useful to the reader

Line 238 - Could the authors comment if the peak age of death at one month is related to the age group being studied to be 0-12 months of age as compared to other SUDI studies where the study group is from 2 to 12 months ?

Prevention issues - of the risk groups are not discussed much . Any comments on how the babies of later birth order might be at risk ?

Is there a concern about neglect if the duration of an infant seen alive is more than 5-6 hours for those found in the morning, and more than 2-3 hours for those found in the afternoon (since the parents or childminder would be awake then)? Is there a likely delay in reporting due to possible infanticide/ negligence in those reporting that last seen alive was 8 hours ? Or is it a non carer who was reporting his duration? Lack of this data could be a discussion point in your study re improvement in investigation by the social workers or police.

Issues related to DSI itself could be a discussion point on quality improvement in documentation and investigative process, were there any cases which could have been missed infanticide ?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Irene Guat Sim CHEAH

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 21;15(8):e0233253. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233253.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


8 Jul 2020

The detailed review of our article is appreciated. The comments by the reviewer have been helpful in allowing us to revise the manuscript. The authors have attempted to address the questions raised as separate pages. According to the raised comments, the manuscript has been rewritten extensively to a revised version. Alterations are indicated as track changes in the revised manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responce to Reviwers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Ju Lee Oei

22 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-12699R1

Circumstances and factors of sudden infant deaths during sleep in Japan

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Osawa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The comments from reviewer 2 are minor and it would help greatly if the authors could address them. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 05 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ju Lee Oei

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have answered all comments from the reviewer appropriately. No further comment to the authors.

Reviewer #2: 1. I would suggest to authors if removing the words "during sleep" and from the objective would make the study different? SUDI by definition happens during sleep. It would make the methodology wording less confusing

2. The methodology is not clear partly from the language, so i have made some suggestions to insert the phrases in the comments or exchange some words that are crossed out with those in the comments (if u place your mouse cursor over the speech icon) in the attached pdf file . Hope the authors can check if the suggestions are what they meant

3. The formatting of tables in the original submission are better, except that the early and late infancy columns have been removed

4. Suggest that the 14% of the national population used in the calculation of the rates be displayed in the table instead of the whole national population birth data so that the denominator for the calculation of the SUDI rates are clear

5. More discussion on the limitations of the study due to the methodology can be added as given in the comments in the pdf

Overall, if these adjustments are made, the study would be useful to show some of the epidemiological findings of SUDI in japan

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-12699_R1_reviewer.pdf

PLoS One. 2020 Aug 21;15(8):e0233253. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233253.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


3 Aug 2020

Reviewer #2:

Thank you very much for the detailed comments to our submission. The raised comments were helpful to revise the manuscript. The reply is described below. The answer to miscellaneous comments in the PDF file is indicated in the file as well. Alterations are indicated in the revised text in red.

1. I would suggest to authors if removing the words "during sleep" and from the objective would make the study different? SUDI by definition happens during sleep. It would make the methodology wording less confusing

Reply

The authors agree with the point that the reviewer suggested. According to the comment, the words "during sleep" have been replaced by "sleep-related" as the first submission was.

2. The methodology is not clear partly from the language, so i have made some suggestions to insert the phrases in the comments or exchange some words that are crossed out with those in the comments (if u place your mouse cursor over the speech icon) in the attached pdf file . Hope the authors can check if the suggestions are what they meant

Reply

Thank you for the detailed check to the text. We followed all the suggestions. Please see the revised version, and the PDF file.

3. The formatting of tables in the original submission are better, except that the early and late infancy columns have been removed

Reply

According to the suggestion, all Tables 1 to 3 are formatted like the original version, except for the removal of early and late columns.

4. Suggest that the 14% of the national population used in the calculation of the rates be displayed in the table instead of the whole national population birth data so that the denominator for the calculation of the SUDI rates are clear

Reply

The authors agree with what the reviewer pointed out. But the replacement in the column to the local population by multiplying 0.14 is unnatural for us. It is because only the total population is real. The area covered by the participants often overlaps to that of another institution. Each institution has a limited capacity for autopsy, so that police usually can choose the alternative one. The number of 0.14 is not strict at all, but actually tentative. We would like to show the total number as the last version was. Instead, a proviso is added into the bottom of the revised table with asterisk. Please see line 177.

5. More discussion on the limitations of the study due to the methodology can be added as given in the comments in the pdf

Reply

According to the advice, the statement concerning the limitations is transferred into the section of Discussion. Please see lines 294-295 and 310-312.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responce to Reviwers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Ju Lee Oei

7 Aug 2020

Circumstances and factors of sleep-related sudden infant deaths in Japan

PONE-D-20-12699R2

Dear Dr. Osawa,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ju Lee Oei

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Ju Lee Oei

12 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-12699R2

Circumstances and factors of sleep-related sudden infancy deaths in Japan

Dear Dr. Osawa:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ju Lee Oei

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responce to Reviwers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-12699_R1_reviewer.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responce to Reviwers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES