Umbilical Cord Management at Term and Late Preterm Birth: A Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation prioritized scientific review of umbilical cord management at term and late preterm birth. OBJECTIVE: To assess effects of umbilical cord management strategies (clamping timing and cord milking) in infants ≥34 weeks' gestational age. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and trial registries searched July 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Two authors independently assessed eligibility of randomized controlled trials. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed evidence certainty (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations). RESULTS: We identified 46 studies (9159 women and their infants) investigating 7 comparisons. Compared with early cord clamping (ECC) <30 seconds, delayed cord clamping (DCC) ≥30 seconds (33 studies), intact-cord milking (1 study), and cut-cord milking (2 studies) probably improve hematologic measures but may not affect survival without neurodisability, anemia in early infancy, or maternal postpartum hemorrhage. No differences in major neonatal morbidities are seen in studies comparing methods of optimizing placental transfusion (DCC versus cut-cord milking [3 studies], longer delays in clamping [7 studies], or physiologic parameters [3 studies]). Strategies that promote increased placental transfusion may be associated with greater phototherapy use. Evidence for all outcomes was low or very low certainty. LIMITATIONS: Incompleteness and low certainty of findings limit applicability. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ECC, DCC or cord milking increases hemoglobin and hematocrit immediately after birth in infants ≥34 weeks' gestational age. The uncertain effects of DCC and cord milking compared with ECC on major morbidities limit usefulness of available evidence for policy and 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".