ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2016
Skin-to-skin contact with an umbilical venous catheter: prospective evaluation in a level 3 unit.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adverse events associated with umbilical catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2021Pooled it
- Perceptions and Experiences of Parents of Preterm Infants with Umbilical Venous Catheter Undergoing Skin-to-Skin Contact.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledThe aim was to assess the incidence of complications related to skin-to-skin contact (SSC) in newborns with an umbilical venous catheter (UVC). We carried out a prospective follow-up study of all UVCs in a level 3 unit where SSC is systematic. A total of 333 babies were included (mean gestational age of 31.3 weeks (24-41), mean birth weight of 1618 g (454-4900). Two hundred sixty-three babies (78.9 %) had SSC, at a mean postnatal age of 24 h (3-144 h). Two babies presented with a significant umbilical bleeding, all in the first 3 h, before SSC. In 17 cases of UVC leaking, this necessitated an unwanted withdrawal of the UVC; of these, 14 UVCs (82 %) were in sub-hepatic position. In five cases of UVC displacement, babies had no SSC. The overall incidence (3 % [95 % CI = 1.4-5.4]) and incidence density (6.2/1000 UVC-day [95 % CI = 3-11.4]) of catheter-associated infections are similar to those identified by the French multicenter network NEOCAT in 2012 (5 % [95 % CI = 4.1-5.9] and 11.3/1000 UVC-day [95 % CI = 9.3-13.2]).
conclusionIn this prospective, non-randomized study in a level unit, routine practice of SSC with a UVC does not seem to influence the incidence of mechanical and infectious complications. What is known? • SSC is beneficial for pretem infants. • Fear of mechanical problems and/or infections with a UVC is an obstacle to early use of SSC. What is New: • In this study, SSC for preterm infants with a UVC is associated with low risks of mechanical complications, and does not seem to be associated with any higher risk of catheter-related infections.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.