Umbilical cord disinfection: an evidence-based review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Umbilical cord care differs across cultures. Aseptic technique is generally accepted, although there is much debate on the best treatment. Keeping the umbilical cord stump clean and dry is often neglected. The aim of this study is to determine if umbilical cord disinfection reduces perinatal morbidity of newborns delivered in the hospital setting in developed countries. Data sources: MEDLINE, National Guideline Clearinghouse, NICE Guidelines Finder, Canadian Medical Association Practice Guidelines Infobase, The Cochrane Library, DARE, Bandolier, evidence-based medicine websites and bibliographic references of the selected articles were searched. Revision methods: A study of clinical guidelines, meta-analyses, systematic reviews and randomized clinical trials was carried out. The MeSH terms used were ‘Chlorhexidine’, ‘Disinfectants’ and ‘Umbilical cord’ for studies published between August 2005 and August 2015 in English, Spanish and Portuguese. To evaluate the levels of evidence and strength of recommendations, the Strength of recommendation taxonomy scale of American Academy of Family Physicians was used. Results: The search produced 315 results. Of these, three publications were included. One meta-analysis showed no significant difference in omphalitis with application of antiseptic versus placebo. Two clinical guidelines stated that application of antimicrobials was not superior to dry cord care in preventing cord infection and bacterial colonization. Conclusions: The analysis of the articles selected showed that there is insufficient evidence to advise the use of antiseptics in the care of the umbilical cord of infants born in hospital in developed countries (strength of recommendation A). Dry cord care is recommended. More high quality studies are needed including randomized controlled trials in relevant populations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".