Attitude of obstetricians towards delayed cord clamping: A questionnaire-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is no consensus amongst medical and midwifery staff on the optimum time to cut the umbilical cord following childbirth. Studies have shown that delaying cord clamping for at least 30 seconds is associated with less need for blood transfusion and respiratory support. In 2004, Rabe et al. recommended delayed cord clamping for up to 120 seconds in preterm birth. The aim of our study was to ascertain whether or not obstetricians adopt this recommendation. Questionnaires were given to obstetricians from 43 different units in UK, other EU countries, USA, Canada, Australia etc. There was a 100% response rate. 53% adopted the recommendation only occasionally whereas 37% have never. Difficulty with implementation in clinical practice was the main reason for failure to adopt recommendation. Unawareness of the evidence of the benefits of delayed cord clamping was the reason in half of the non-compliant group. Obstetricians are reluctant to adopt the recommendation. Difficulty in clinical practice was the main reason. There is need for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to produce guidelines for delayed cord clamping in obstetric practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".