ArticleMedicine2019
Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping on maternal and neonatal outcomes: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A randomized controlled study of immediate versus delayed umbilical cord clamping in infants born by elective caesarean section.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2020Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUmbilical cord clamping is one of the most commonly used medical or complementary medical interventions. The different timing of cord clamping may have any significant impact on public health. However, the results remain controversial. The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the effect of different timing of umbilical cord clamping on maternal and neonatal outcomes.
methodsA systematic literature search for relevant articles will be conducted in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database from their inception to December 2018. Any randomized controlled trial (RCT), case-control study, observational study, that reported the effect of different timing of cord clamping will be included regardless of sample size. There are no language restrictions. Mortality and risk of iron-deficiency anemia will be used to assess the clinical effect. Risk of bias assessment of the included RCTs will be conducted by the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale is used to assess observational studies. All statistical analyses will be performed using Stata V.15.0. A modified version of Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation will be used to assess the quality of evidence in network meta-analysis (NMA).
resultsThe results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
conclusionThis will be the first NMA to evaluate and compare the effect of different timing of umbilical cord clamping. We hope that the results of this NMA will help clinicians and caregivers make more appropriate choices when clamping umbilical cord.
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.