ArticlePloS one2025
Attitudes and beliefs regarding umbilical cord clamping among midwives, obstetricians, and neonatologists in Sweden: A national cross-sectional survey.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Parental Acceptability and Experiences of In-Bed Resuscitation at Birth: Findings From a Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of pediatrics. Clinical practice · 2026Article
- Care of the Newborn and Cord During the Third Stage of Labour (Scientific Impact Paper No. 78).BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe study aimed to explore attitudes and beliefs among midwives, obstetricians, and neonatologists regarding umbilical cord clamping practices, including scenarios involving neonatal compromise. The study was conducted in the context of exploring the potential for implementing intact cord resuscitation. STUDY
designA national cross-sectional survey was administered electronically, using an adaptation of the previously used questionnaire developed by Jelin et al. The survey was conducted among midwives, nursing staff, obstetricians, and pediatricians/neonatologists from September 2022 to August 2023. Results were analyzed and reported using descriptive and inferential statistics.
resultOf 838 respondents analyzed, 94% reported cord clamping timing being "very or moderately important" for neonatal outcomes, where midwives more frequently chose "very important" compared to physicians (p < 0.001). Midwives commonly preferred an event-based (e.g., cessation of pulsations) approach to cord clamping. In scenarios involving resuscitation, 27% of midwives and 10% of pediatric physicians, preferred an event-based approach to cord clamping, with a significant difference between groups (p = 0.005). Among obstetricians, 28.8% reported considering an event-based approach to cord clamping in elective cesarean sections. In resuscitation scenarios, obstetricians predominantly selected < 30 s as the preferred timing for cord clamping, whereas pediatric physicians were less likely to do so (p < 0.001).
conclusionTiming of cord clamping is considered important among respondents. The study reveals a generally positive attitude towards delayed cord clamping among health care professionals in Sweden, with notable variations between professional groups. The interprofessional differences highlight the need for shared guidelines and collaborative training to support the potential implementation of intact cord resuscitation.
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.