MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3156728205 · doi:10.34074/thes.5469

Timing of cord clamping (TOCC): An observational study of cord clamping practice in a New Zealand maternity hospital

2019· dissertation· en· W3156728205 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tina Hewitt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClampingCord clampingObservational studyCordMedicineEngineeringSurgeryInternal medicineMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: When an umbilical cord is left unclamped after birth, a significant proportion of the blood from the placenta flows into the newborn, contributing to approximately one-quarter of total potential blood volume. The routine intervention of immediate cord clamping was introduced as part of active management of the third stage of labour over half a century ago. It has become a growing cause for concern due to the potential harm of preventing the newborn access to its placental blood and subsequent reduction in iron levels. Despite the evidence of potential harm from immediate cord clamping, a study in Canada found that over half of the infants observed in 2006/7 had their cord clamped within 15 seconds of birth (Hutton, Stoll, & Taha, 2013). AIM: The aim of the TOCC study was to investigate cord clamping practice for term vaginal births in a New Zealand tertiary hospital, where the majority of births have a midwife as lead practitioner. METHODS: A stopwatch was used to time the cord clamping interval at 55 term vaginal births in a tertiary maternity hospital. The stopwatch was pressed once at the time of the birth and once when the first clamp was applied to the umbilical cord. Mode of birth (spontaneous or instrumental), maternal position for birth and whether midwives and/or doctors and neonatal practitioner were involved in the birth was documented alongside the cord clamping timing. RESULTS: Cord clamping timing ranged from a minimum of 14 seconds to a maximum of 34 minutes. The median umbilical cord clamping time for all births in the study was 3.5 minutes. The median cord clamping time was likely to be longer when the woman had a spontaneous vaginal birth rather than an instrumental birth; when she birthed in a side-lying or upright position rather than a seated position; when a midwife facilitated the birth rather than a doctor and when there was no neonatal team present at the birth. CONCLUSIONS: The median cord clamping time of 3.5 minutes is aligned with current local, national and international guidelines. Midwives are likely to facilitate longer cord clamping times as they are more likely than doctors to attend spontaneous uncomplicated births which do not warrant immediate separation of mother and baby for preventative or resuscitative measures. Further discussion is warranted on how longer cord clamping times fit with active management of placental birth and how we can achieve optimal cord clamping when newborn resuscitation is indicated.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research→French-language works237,207→