Deferred Cord Clamping in Twin Pregnancies Across Canada: A National Survey of Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Guidelines recommending deferred cord clamping (DCC), delaying cord clamping for at least 30 seconds post-birth, have shown significant benefits in preterm singleton births. However, evidence supporting DCC in twins is scarce due to limited trial data, leading to practice variations. This study aims to assess current reported DCC practices for twin pregnancies in tertiary hospitals across Canada. METHODS: A web-based survey was distributed to neonatologists and obstetrician investigators associated with the Canadian Neonatal and Preterm Birth Networks operating maternity and neonatal units. RESULTS: The site response rate was 93% (28/30 sites), with 83% (25/30) for neonatologists and 56% (17/30) for obstetricians. The majority had a local protocol for twin pregnancies (obstetricians 13/17, neonatologists 21/25). While all centres practised DCC in dichorionic-diamniotic twins, a difference was noted for monochorionic-diamniotic twins, with 56% of neonatologists and 65% of obstetricians performing DCC. During cesarean delivery, most obstetricians (76.5%) placed the firstborn on the mother's thighs. Neonatologists varied in their practices, with 32% placing the baby on the mother's abdomen, 32% on the mother's thighs, and 28% holding the baby at the height of the perineum. Divergent opinions were observed regarding contraindications, including risks of postpartum hemorrhage and velamentous cord insertion. CONCLUSIONS: DCC is reported to be practised in most twin deliveries among Canadian Neonatal and Preterm Birth Network centres. However, there are wide variations in practice, especially concerning the characteristics of the twins in which DCC is performed. Future research should investigate optimal cord clamping management in twins to standardize practices and maximize benefits.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".