MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947335046 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxz066.142

143 A comparison of the different strategies for managing the umbilical cord at birth

2019· article· en· W2947335046 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jehier Afifi, Jon Dorling, Jaya Bodani, Zenon Cieslak, Rody Canning, Shoo Lee, Xiang Y. Ye, Prakesh S. Shah, Walid El‐Naggar

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNeonatal skin health care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMoncton HospitalRoyal Columbian HospitalRegina General HospitalDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUmbilical cordConfoundingGestational ageApgar scoreBirth weightNeonatal intensive care unitPediatricsObstetricsOdds ratioLogistic regressionUnivariate analysisGeePregnancyGeneralized estimating equationMultivariate analysisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Delayed cord clamping (DCC) at birth for at least 30 seconds has been recommended as the standard of care for preterm infants. However, other strategies like umbilical cord milking (UCM) and early cord clamping (ECC) are still being practiced. To investigate the frequency and trend of practicing different strategies for managing the umbilical cord at birth (ECC, UCM, and DCC) in preterm infants and to compare the short-term outcomes of these strategies. We conducted a retrospective review of maternal, perinatal and neonatal data of preterm infants born at <33 weeks’ gestation who were admitted to NICUs participating in the Canadian Neonatal Network Database between January 2015 and December 2017. Infants planned for palliative care and those with major congenital anomalies were excluded. Patients who received ECC (<30 seconds), UCM or DCC (≥ 30 seconds) were compared. Multiple logistic regression model with generalized estimation equation (GEE) approach was used to compare the outcomes among the three strategies adjusted for confounders. Of 12749 patients admitted during the three-year study period, 9729 infants were included. 4916 (50.5%) received ECC, 394 (4.1%) received UCM and 4419 (45.4%) received DCC. The trend of practicing UCM and DCC has increased over study years (p<0.001)-Figure 1. Maternal and neonatal characteristics are shown in Table 1. After adjustment for potential confounders identified as significantly different between groups on univariate analysis, patients who received DCC had higher birth weight and lower odds of Apgar score <4 at 5 minutes, surfactant administration, inotropic support in first 48hrs, receiving blood transfusions, intraventricular hemorrhage, sepsis, patent ductus arteriosus, and mortality than those who received ECC (Table 2). DCC patients had also lower odds of intubations, surfactant use and severe IVH than those who received UCM. On the other hand, UCM patients had higher admission temperature than the ECC and DCC groups. Neither DCC nor UCM was associated with any adverse effects when compared to ECC. The practice of DCC and UCM for preterm infants has increased over the last three years in Canadian NICUs. However, 44% of patients still received ECC in 2017.This study confirms the significant beneficial effects of DCC on the short-term outcomes in preterm infants.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicNeonatal skin health careFrench-language works237,207