Trial reportJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2026
Timing of skin-to-skin contact after cesarean section on exclusive breastfeeding: an open-label, randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveTo compare the effect of skin-to-skin contact (SSC) initiation at three different time points on exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) rates at 6 weeks among healthy term infants delivered via cesarean section. STUDY
designIn this open-label randomized controlled trial, neonates were assigned to three groups: Group 1 (immediate SSC in the delivery room), Group 2 (SSC after transfer to the recovery room), and Group 3 (breastfeeding initiation followed by SSC in the recovery room). The primary outcome was the percentage of mothers exclusively breastfeeding (EBF) at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included duration of SSC, early initiation of breastfeeding (EIBF) rates, exclusive breastfeeding rates at 6 months, and challenges during implementation of SSC.
resultsBaseline characteristics were similar across 750 enrolled infants (250 per group). In Group 1, 46 babies (18.4%) faced challenges in SSC initiation and were reallocated. No significant difference in 6-week EBF rates (RR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.77-1.25, p = 0.90). Group 3 was associated with the highest EIBF rates (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.8, p = 0.013) and the longest duration of SSC.
conclusionGiven the challenges of immediate intraoperative SSC after a C-section, our study found that initiating SSC in the recovery room is a practical and effective alternative, having a similar impact on breastfeeding rates. While the timing of SSC does not significantly impact EBF rates at 6 weeks or 6 months, it remains a critical factor for EIBF. Our findings show that immediate SSC significantly optimizes EIBF. Furthermore, the high EBF rates sustained across all cohorts suggest that robust institutional support is a primary driver of long-term breastfeeding success.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42192161What 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.