3 ms·

So, on further research it seems pretty clear that the mattress wrapping stuff is junk. Here's a decent study refuting it [1]. One key quote is "SIDS mortality

So, on further research it seems pretty clear that the mattress wrapping stuff is junk. Here's a decent study refuting it [1]. One key quote is "SIDS mortality has declined 63% from 1994 to 2004. The prevalence of plastic wrapped cot mattresses has remained constant since 1997. The decline in SIDS cannot be explained by changes in the proportion of plastic-wrapped mattresses." The promotion of "mattress wrapping" coincided with an education campaign promoting other methods known to help reduce SIDS (like having babies sleep on their backs). [1] Mitchell, Edwin. (2008). Wrapping a cot mattress in plastic does not explain the continuing fall in SIDS mortality. European journal of pediatrics. 167. 251-2. 10.1007/s00431-007-0526-8. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edwin_Mitchell/publication/6196508_Wrapping_a_cot_mattress_in_plastic_does_not_explain_the_continuing_fall_in_SIDS_mortality/links/00463518c816c3c40f000000/Wrapping-a-cot-mattress-in-plastic-does-not-explain-the-continuing-fall-in-SIDS-mortality.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edwin_Mitchell/publicat...

m_mueller 9y ago
I'm aware of that one and I don't think it explains everything if you pay closr attention. They don't go further than taking a general population statistic and try to to infer from correlation that mattress wrapping is disproven. What happens if you actually have two groups, one using wrapping and one from the same demographics who don't? Sprott hypothesises that laying infants on their back will reduce SIDS thanks to less exposure to toxic gases from funghi consuming plastics. That causal link is unproven as it seems, but it gives an explanation for the numbers you quote that agrees with the results reported by Sprott / Richardson.
- comstock 9y ago
  Reference 2 of that paper [1] describes such a study: "We conclude that not only is there no evidence from this study of any identifiable increase in the risk of SIDS associated with the use of mattresses with an integral PVC cover, but also that the use of such mattresses is associated with a lower risk..." [1] http://moscow.sci-hub.cc/e537c543e3d261c8c9ecf5b144267b15/blair1995.pdf http://moscow.sci-hub.cc/e537c543e3d261c8c9ecf5b144267b15/bl...
  - m_mueller 9y ago
    Thank you, good find. It appears to me that there's two different subjects here. Richardson found a potential link between toxic gases from fungal growth. Sprott developed a (low cost) method using plastic wrapping to counter it, and has data to back it up. Your linked study says that plastic covers reduces the risk of SIDS. Well, it seems to me that these findings all agree if the fungal growth (within the loose stuffing material [1]) hypothesis is correct. I expect a plastic cover to somewhat shield from such gases since it would make them vent more to the sides. In Sprott's solution there's holes at the bottom of the wrapping such that the vent is also happening around the mattress rather than at the top. One maybe crucial finding in your study that would not agree with Sprott/Richardson is the null result concerning the use of older mattresses. That one seems curious to me. So here's my next question: Blair et al., Richardson as well as Sprott have data that the bedding has significant influence on SIDS risk. Why is there no mention of this in any national health advisory I can find? Why are there no follow-up studies and the medical community just settled on advising for back sleeping, even though it seems obvious that the risk can be mitigated further? [1] It's noteworthy that Blair et al. did not distinguish about the stuffing material, which was a rather crucial point made by Richardson AFAIK. Both Richardson and Sprott have specific advise for what material should be used (pure cotton, no wool and PVC in the stuffing). Was that left out your linked study intentionally?
    - comstock 9y ago
      The plastic covers used in Blair et al. are 90% PVC covers. Richardson suggested PVC being digested by the fungus as the cause. So it's exactly the situation that should cause SIDS and it results in lower incidence of SIDS. The mattress wrapping suggested by Sprott is wrapping using polythene. So the results are totally incompatible with the notion that PVC mattresses causes SIDS as suggested by Richardson and Sprott. There are other reports too, such as that conducted by the British government in 1998...

m_mueller 9y ago

I'm aware of that one and I don't think it explains everything if you pay closr attention. They don't go further than taking a general population statistic and try to to infer from correlation that mattress wrapping is disproven. What happens if you actually have two groups, one using wrapping and one from the same demographics who don't? Sprott hypothesises that laying infants on their back will reduce SIDS thanks to less exposure to toxic gases from funghi consuming plastics. That causal link is unproven as it seems, but it gives an explanation for the numbers you quote that agrees with the results reported by Sprott / Richardson.

comstock 9y ago
Reference 2 of that paper [1] describes such a study: "We conclude that not only is there no evidence from this study of any identifiable increase in the risk of SIDS associated with the use of mattresses with an integral PVC cover, but also that the use of such mattresses is associated with a lower risk..." [1] http://moscow.sci-hub.cc/e537c543e3d261c8c9ecf5b144267b15/blair1995.pdf http://moscow.sci-hub.cc/e537c543e3d261c8c9ecf5b144267b15/bl...
- m_mueller 9y ago
  Thank you, good find. It appears to me that there's two different subjects here. Richardson found a potential link between toxic gases from fungal growth. Sprott developed a (low cost) method using plastic wrapping to counter it, and has data to back it up. Your linked study says that plastic covers reduces the risk of SIDS. Well, it seems to me that these findings all agree if the fungal growth (within the loose stuffing material [1]) hypothesis is correct. I expect a plastic cover to somewhat shield from such gases since it would make them vent more to the sides. In Sprott's solution there's holes at the bottom of the wrapping such that the vent is also happening around the mattress rather than at the top. One maybe crucial finding in your study that would not agree with Sprott/Richardson is the null result concerning the use of older mattresses. That one seems curious to me. So here's my next question: Blair et al., Richardson as well as Sprott have data that the bedding has significant influence on SIDS risk. Why is there no mention of this in any national health advisory I can find? Why are there no follow-up studies and the medical community just settled on advising for back sleeping, even though it seems obvious that the risk can be mitigated further? [1] It's noteworthy that Blair et al. did not distinguish about the stuffing material, which was a rather crucial point made by Richardson AFAIK. Both Richardson and Sprott have specific advise for what material should be used (pure cotton, no wool and PVC in the stuffing). Was that left out your linked study intentionally?
  - comstock 9y ago
    The plastic covers used in Blair et al. are 90% PVC covers. Richardson suggested PVC being digested by the fungus as the cause. So it's exactly the situation that should cause SIDS and it results in lower incidence of SIDS. The mattress wrapping suggested by Sprott is wrapping using polythene. So the results are totally incompatible with the notion that PVC mattresses causes SIDS as suggested by Richardson and Sprott. There are other reports too, such as that conducted by the British government in 1998...