ReviewBirth (Berkeley, Calif.)2022
Integrated review of the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of maternity health care professionals concerning umbilical cord clamping.
Review in Birth (Berkeley, Calif.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors associated with rates and durations of cord clamping practice compliance in preterm neonates of <33 weeks' gestation.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025Article
- Article
- Determinants of nurse-midwives' compliance with delayed cord clamping in primary and secondary health facilities, Tanga Region: A cross-sectional study.PLOS global public health · 2025Article
- How to improve newborn outcomes in 60 s-delay clamping the umbilical cord.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Article
- Integrated review of the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of maternity health care professionals concerning umbilical cord clamping.Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) · 2022Review
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 clamp timing has implications for newborn health, which include increased iron stores up to 6 months of age. National and International cord clamping guidelines differ as do health professionals' practices. The rationale for differences in cord clamping practice is unclear. AIMS AND
objectiveStudies on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of maternity health care professionals about cord clamp timing were synthesized. Similarities and differences between professional groups and understanding of the optimal timing of cord clamp timing for term newborns were compared.
methodsAn integrative review was undertaken. PubMed, Scopus, MIDIRS, CINAHL, and Google Scholar were searched. Publication date limits were set between January 2007 and December 2020. Quality appraisal was undertaken using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) tools.
resultsEighteen studies met inclusion criteria, as they included primary research studies that investigated maternity health care professionals' knowledge, attitudes, and practices about umbilical cord clamping, and were written in English. Four main subject areas were identified: a) knowledge of optimal cord clamp timing; b) attitudes and perceptions of early vs deferred cord clamping; c) cord clamping practice; and d) rationale for cord clamping practice.
conclusionsDifferent attitudes and practices were identified between midwifery and medical professionals in relation to cord clamp timing together with health professional knowledge and practice gaps pertaining to optimal cord clamp timing. Contemporary evidence should inform guidelines for clinical practice and be embedded into maternity health professional curricula and professional development programs.
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.