Trial reportEuropean journal of pediatrics2025
School age outcomes of very premature infants randomized to cord milking versus early cord clamping at birth.
Trial report in European journal of pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- School age outcomes of very premature infants randomized to cord milking versus early cord clamping at birth - Response to the commenting letter by Azam et al.European journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Comment on "School age outcomes of very premature infants randomized to cord milking versus early cord clamping at birth".European journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the effect of intact cord milking (I-UCM) compared to immediate cord clamping (ICC) on neurodevelopmental outcomes at seven years of age in very preterm infants. This prospective single-blind cohort study included children who were previously participated in a randomized controlled trial comparing I-UCM and ICC. At about 7 years of age, participants were administered the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (Vineland-II) and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV). A total of 31 children were included in the follow-up study. The mean age of participants was 6.4 ± 0.5 years. The mean gestational age at birth was 28.5 ± 1.7 weeks. There were no cases with grade ≥ 3 intraventriculary hemorrhage (IVH) in the present study cohort. Although the I-UCM group showed a trend toward higher median full-scale IQ, the difference was not statistically significant (p: 0.057). A significantly higher percentage of cases in the I-UCM group achived a full-scale IQ above 85 in the WISC-IV (p = 0.048). The mean of the "written language scaled score" subdomain among Vineland-II scores was found to be significantly higher in the I-UCM group. A significantly higher percentage of cases in the I-UCM group had a written language scaled score above 12 (p: 0.029).
conclusionA comparison of I-UCM with ICC in preterm infants born at a mean age of 28 weeks and without severe IVH revealed that I-UCM did not result in long-term neurodevelopmental adverse outcomes. I-UCM even had positive effects in some subdomains of detailed neurodevelopmental tests. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Compared to immediate cord clamping, umbilical cord milking improves the short-term postnatal outcomes of very preterm infants. There is a lack of robust data regarding the long-term neurodevelopmental effects of umbilical cord milking in preterm infants. WHAT IS NEW: • Among very preterm infants without severe intraventricular hemorrhage, intact umbilical cord milking was not associated with long-term adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes. Intact-umbilical cord milking even had positive effects in some subdomains of detailed neurodevelopmental tests.
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.