↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Provision of respiratory support compared to no respiratory support before cord clamping for preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
22 tweeters
1 Facebook page


6 Dimensions

Readers on

164 Mendeley
Provision of respiratory support compared to no respiratory support before cord clamping for preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012491.pub2
Pubmed ID

Michael P Meyer, Elizabeth Nevill, Maisie M Wong


Placental transfusion (by means of delayed cord clamping (DCC), cord milking, or cord stripping) confers benefits for preterm infants. It is not known if providing respiratory support to preterm infants before cord clamping improves outcomes. To assess the efficacy and safety of respiratory support provided during DCC compared with no respiratory support during placental transfusion (in the form of DCC, milking, or stripping) in preterm infants immediately after delivery. We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 19 June 2017), Embase (1980 to 19 June 2017), and CINAHL (1982 to 19 June 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials. Randomized, cluster randomized, or quasi-randomized controlled trials enrolling preterm infants undergoing DCC, where one of the groups received respiratory support before cord clamping and the control group received no respiratory support before cord clamping. All review authors assisted with data collection, assessment, and extraction. Two review authors assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We contacted study authors to request missing information. One study fulfilled the review criteria. In this study, 150 preterm infants of less than 32 weeks' gestation undergoing 60 second DCC were randomized to a group who received respiratory support in the form of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or positive pressure ventilation during DCC and a group that did not receive respiratory support during the procedure. Mortality during hospital admission was not significantly different between groups with wide confidence intervals (CI) for magnitude of effect (risk ratio (RR) 1.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 6.73). The study did not report neurodevelopmental disability and death or disability at two to three years of age. There were no significant differences between groups in condition at birth (Apgar scores or intubation in the delivery room), use of inotropic agents (RR 1.25, CI 0.63 to 2.49), and receipt of blood transfusion (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.54). In addition, there were no significant differences in the incidences of any intraventricular haemorrhage (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.46) and severe intraventricular haemorrhage (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.75). Several continuous variables were reported in subgroups depending on method of delivery. Unpublished data for each group as a whole was made available and showed peak haematocrit in the first 24 hours and duration of phototherapy did not differ significantly. Overall, the quality of evidence for several key neonatal outcomes (e.g. mortality and intraventricular haemorrhage) was low because of lack of precision with wide CIs. The results from one study with wide CIs for magnitude of effect do not provide evidence either for or against the use of respiratory support before clamping the umbilical cord. A greater body of evidence is required as many of the outcomes of interest to the review occurred infrequently. Similarly, the one included study cannot answer the question of whether the intervention is or is not harmful.

Twitter Demographics

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 164 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 15%
Researcher 17 10%
Student > Master 15 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 7%
Other 11 7%
Other 28 17%
Unknown 56 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 14%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 60 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 September 2018.
All research outputs
of 23,566,295 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 333,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 226 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,566,295 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,743 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,870 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 226 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.