ArticleMaternal health, neonatology and perinatology2026
Timing of umbilical cord clamping and its predictors among neonates in Northeast Ethiopia: a multicenter prospective observational study.
Article in Maternal health, neonatology and perinatology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOptimal umbilical cord clamping, defined as clamping between one and three minutes after birth, is recommended by the World Health Organization to improve infant health and nutritional outcomes through placental transfusion. Despite these recommendations, early cord clamping remains prevalent in many settings, depriving neonates of up to 30% greater blood volume and increasing the risk of iron deficiency anemia., Evidence on the time to cord clamping and its predictors is limited in Ethiopia. The study aim to assess the time to umbilical cord clamping and its predictors among neonates in Northeast Ethiopia.
methodsA facility-based prospective observational study was conducted among 264 neonates from February 1 to March 2, 2025. The study participants were selected using systematic sampling technique. Data were collected via observation and structured checklists and analyzed using STATA 17. Each neonate was observed for a fixed maximum of 60 s from birth. Cord clamping within 60 s was considered the event of interest; neonates not clamped by 60 s were right-censored at that time point. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan‒Meier estimates, and the Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to identify independent predictors of early cord clamping. Adjusted hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals are reported, and variables with p values < 0.05 in the multivariable analysis were considered significant predictors.
resultsThe overall incidence rate of early cord clamping was 8.27 per 1000 person-seconds (95% CI: 6.88-9.94). A history of preeclampsia (AHR = 3.06, 95% CI: 1.81-5.19), cesarean delivery (AHR = 3.08, 95% CI: 1.90-5.01), episiotomy (AHR = 3.48, 95% CI: 2.01-6.07), the presence of a nuchal cord (AHR = 4.08, 95% CI: 2.09-7.96), the need for neonatal resuscitation (AHR = 2.98, 95% CI: 1.20-7.37), and a first-minute Apgar score < 7 (AHR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.05-4.67) were independent predictors of a shorter time to cord clamping. The log-rank test revealed statistically significant differences in the number of clamps across all these predictors (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Early cord clamping remains highly prevalent in the study area, with more than two-fifths of neonates clamped within the first minute. Therefore, strengthening adherence to the recommendations through targeted training, institutional protocol reinforcement, and quality improvement initiatives is recommended. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.