An international study led by Chris Brook, a professor at the University of La Laguna in Tenerife (Canary Islands, Spain), questions the scientific basis of the so-called shaken baby syndrome. Researchers warn that an unvalidated diagnostic assumption can lead to unjustified removal of custody, accusations, or criminal convictions.
In an article published in the journal Forensic Science International: Synergy, the researchers critically evaluate the research cited in the 2025 Technical Report from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) — the world's most influential guideline for the diagnosis of Abusive Head Trauma, also known as Shaken Baby Syndrome (TCA/SBS).
The authors conclude that the evidentiary base used to support current diagnostic practices for this syndrome is much weaker than is commonly believed, and the cited studies suffer from serious methodological flaws, such as circular reasoning and incorporation bias.
Chris Brook emphasizes that "what is presented as scientific evidence to diagnose shaken baby syndrome is a recycling of the same unproven assumptions." The specialist cites the recent case of influencer Anabel Pantoja and her partner, David Rodríguez, who were accused of shaking their daughter in Gran Canaria. Although that case was eventually closed, several shaken baby syndrome cases in Spain in recent years have resulted in prison sentences for parents.
"Cases like that show how quickly a suspicion can arise, based purely on medical interpretation," Brook comments, adding that "our findings indicate that those interpretations lack reliable scientific backing."
The study identifies multiple problems in the research that is commonly used to support the clinical diagnosis of SBS. Thus, 71% of the studies cited by the American Academy of Pediatrics classify cases of this syndrome based on the opinion of experts or multidisciplinary teams, not on validated scientific criteria. According to the signatories of this work, no study adequately avoids circular reasoning: the same clinical findings used to diagnose SBS are used to 'validate' those diagnoses.
Therefore, studies based on 'confessions' involve accounts made after medical accusations, introducing strong selection bias, the researchers point out. As for witnessed shaking events documented by independent eyewitnesses or by video, these are rare, but when they are documented, they do not produce the injuries attributed to SBS.
The authors of this work warn that unvalidated diagnostic assumptions of shaking put families and children at risk, including the removal of babies from non-abusive families, unjust accusations, or criminal convictions.
"A suspicion of shaken baby syndrome is one of the most serious accusations a family can face," Brook emphasizes, who argues that his diagnosis "must be based on robust evidence and, currently, it is not."
