Skip to main content
Download PDF

Umbilical cord milking and delayed cord clamping for the prevention of neonatal hypoglycaemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth volume 24, Article number: 248 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Placental management strategies such as umbilical cord milking and delayed cord clamping may provide a range of benefits for the newborn. The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of umbilical cord milking and delayed cord clamping for the prevention of neonatal hypoglycaemia.

Methods

Three databases and five clinical trial registries were systematically reviewed to identify randomised controlled trials comparing umbilical cord milking or delayed cord clamping with control in term and preterm infants. The primary outcome was neonatal hypoglycaemia (study defined). Two independent reviewers conducted screening, data extraction and quality assessment. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB-2). Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Meta-analysis using a random effect model was done using Review Manager 5.4. The review was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD42022356553).

Results

Data from 71 studies and 14 268 infants were included in this review; 22 (2 537 infants) compared umbilical cord milking with control, and 50 studies (11 731 infants) compared delayed with early cord clamping. For umbilical cord milking there were no data on neonatal hypoglycaemia, and no differences between groups for any of the secondary outcomes. We found no evidence that delayed cord clamping reduced the incidence of hypoglycaemia (6 studies, 444 infants, RR = 0.87, CI: 0.58 to 1.30, p = 0.49, I2 = 0%). Delayed cord clamping was associated with a 27% reduction in neonatal mortality (15 studies, 3 041 infants, RR = 0.73, CI: 0.55 to 0.98, p = 0.03, I2 = 0%). We found no evidence for the effect of delayed cord clamping for any of the other outcomes. The certainty of evidence was low for all outcomes.

Conclusion

We found no data for the effectiveness of umbilical cord milking on neonatal hypoglycaemia, and no evidence that delayed cord clamping reduced the incidence of hypoglycaemia, but the certainty of the evidence was low.

Peer Review reports

Background

Neonatal hypoglycaemia is one of the most common issues encountered in neonatal care. It occurs in 5–10% of healthy term infants [1], and in 27–54% of at-risk infants [2,3,4]. Severe or persistent low glucose concentrations have shown to negatively affect neurological development [2]. Therefore, strategies to prevent neonatal hypoglycaemia warrant investigation [5].

Waiting to clamp and cut the umbilical cord after the birth allows time for the transfer of blood in the placenta to the infant [6]. Delayed cord clamping (DCC) has been shown to provide a variety of short- and long-term benefits for the infant. These include increased neonatal haemoglobin concentrations, decreased incidence of intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) [7], prevention of hypotension, increased Apgar scores and decreased mortality [8,9,10,11]. In preterm infants, DCC may reduce the risk of infant death by 27%, compared to early cord clamping (ECC) [11]. Its unsurprising, therefore, that the World Health Organisation and American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recommend DCC (> 1 min after birth) for improved infant health [12, 13].

Umbilical cord milking (UCM) involves squeezing the umbilical cord several times from the placental end towards the infant [14, 15]. Since this technique can be completed quickly, it can provide an alternative placental transfusion in infants where DCC may be clinically inappropriate [14]. A review by Basile et al. [16] which included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) as well as other study designs, showed that UCM may be comparable to DCC in its effect on haematological parameters. Two recent systematic reviews including only RCTs also found that UCM is comparable to DCC in improving short term haematological outcomes in babies ≥ 34 weeks gestation [15, 17]. In preterm infants, 2 g/dL higher initial levels of haemoglobin have been found in the UCM group compared to ECC or DCC groups [18], and there is some low quality evidence that UCM may improve developmental outcomes when compared to DCC in preterm infants [19]. There appears to be no difference in risk of mortality for preterm babies receiving UCM compared to other cord management strategies [18], although the safety of UCM in extremely preterm infants remains unclear [20].

Once the cord is clamped and placental blood supply ceases, the newborn must adjust from dependence on their mother for fuel to initiating endogenous glucose production [21, 22]. Failure to adapt to this sudden interruption of glucose supply when the cord is clamped is the most common reason for neonatal hypoglycaemia [5, 23]. Placental transfusion through DCC or UCM provides extra blood and may potentially help protect against hypoglycaemia, but there is a paucity of information on this. Therefore, our objective was to perform a systematic review of the effects of DCC and UCM on the incidence of neonatal hypoglycaemia in both term and preterm infants.

Methods

This review was conducted by following the methodology outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [24] and is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [25]. This review was registered with the international database for prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) (ID: CRD42022356553).

Search strategy and selection criteria

We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL Plus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Current Controlled Trials (www.controlled-trials.com), Clinical Trials (www.ClinicalTrials.gov), Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (www.anzctr.org.au), and WHO ICTRP Search Portal (https://apps.who.int/trialsearch/), from inception until March 2023 (Appendix 1). Search results were imported into Covidence software [26] where titles and abstracts were independently screened for eligibility by two authors (EW,LR). Any disagreement was resolved by discussion or with a third author (LL). References of included studies were also screened for inclusion.

Inclusion criteria were term and preterm infants who underwent DCC (≥ 30 s, or study defined) compared to a control intervention (ECC, < 30 s or study defined) or UCM compared to a control intervention (other cord management strategies including ECC and DCC). We included published and unpublished RCTs without restrictions on language and publication date. Exclusion criteria included studies of only non-vigorous infants, or only those requiring resuscitation at birth. The eligibility of the studies was not based on reported outcomes.

The primary outcome was neonatal hypoglycaemia (study defined) before hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes were receipt of treatment for hypoglycaemia during initial hospital stay, number of episodes of hypoglycaemia during initial hospital stay, severity of hypoglycaemia (study defined), admission to special care nursery or neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), admission to special care nursery or NICU for hypoglycaemia, hypoglycaemic injury on brain imaging, blood glucose concentration during initial hospital stay, breastfeeding (study defined) at discharge, neurodevelopmental impairment (study defined), neonatal mortality, length of hospital stay, cost of intervention (as measured by study), and cost of neonatal care (as measured by study).

Data extraction

Data were extracted by two authors (EW, LR) using a custom-designed form on Covidence. Data extracted included study design, location, year of publication, population, intervention details, and information relating to control, participant baseline, outcomes, and subgroups. Any discrepancies in extracted data were resolved by consensus. Risk of bias for all outcomes was independently assessed by two authors (EW, LR) using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB-2) tool [24, 27]. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus, and if necessary, by discussion with a third review author (LL).

Statistical analysis

Meta-analysis was undertaken separately for UCM and DCC using Review Manager 5.4.1. using random effect models [28]. For dichotomous outcomes, the risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. For continuous outcomes, the mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs were calculated. All data using median values (range or interquartile range) were converted to mean and standard deviation (SD) using the method of Wan et al. [29]. All glucose concentrations were converted to mmol/l.

The variability in effect estimates due to heterogeneity was determined by calculating the I2 and X2 for each analysis. Publication bias was determined by visual inspection of funnel plots, plotting the study effect size against the sample size, if there were enough studies (10 or more RCTs). If asymmetry was apparent, possible reasons were discussed. Direction of the findings tables were used to summarise the evidence if meta-analysis was not possible.

Planned subgroup analyses were: (1) Duration of delay before cord clamping (30–60 s vs > 60 s); (2) Gestational age (term vs preterm); (3) Mode of delivery (vaginal vs caesarean); (4) Birth setting (hospital vs non-hospital); (5) Maternal diabetes status (yes/no); (6) Babies at risk of hypoglycaemia (yes/no).

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach [30] was used to assess the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: (1) Neonatal hypoglycaemia (study defined); (2) Receipt of treatment for hypoglycaemia (study defined); (3) Severity of hypoglycaemia (study defined); (4) Admission to NICU for hypoglycaemia; (5) Length of initial hospital stay; (6) Breastfeeding (study defined) at hospital discharge.

Results

Search results

The initial search identified 2 235 potential records, of which 1 596 were screened after duplicates were removed and 301 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Full text screening excluded 209 records. A total of 92 studies were included in the review, with data from 71 studies included in the final analysis (Fig. 1). Authors of ongoing/unpublished studies were contacted to request current status or trial data but no unpublished data were available for inclusion.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram of search process

Full size image

Characteristics of included studies

There were 21 studies assessing UCM compared to control, 16 of which included preterm infants. Fourteen of these studies (67%) were conducted in high income countries, 3 in upper-middle income countries, and 1 in lower-middle income countries [31] (Table 1). They were conducted between 2007 and 2022, and sample size ranged from 24 to 253 infants.

Table 1 Study characteristics
Full size table

Fifty studies compared DCC to control, of which 19 included preterm infants. Cord clamping delay varied from 30 s to 8 min. Twenty-two of these 50 studies were conducted in high-income countries (44%), 13 (26%) in upper-middle income countries, and 15 (30%) in low-middle income countries. They were conducted between 1988 and 2022, and sample size ranged from 32 to 1 566 infants (Table 1).

Risk of bias in included studies

In the studies assessing UCM, high risk of bias was found in 2/8 studies looking at length of hospital stay outcome (25%), and some concerns were found in 5/8 studies (63%). For neonatal mortality, 18% of studies (2/11) showed high risk of bias, and 64% (7/11 studies) had some concerns. Two of the 5 studies (20%) assessing neurodevelopmental outcomes had high risk of bias, and 1/5 (20%) had some concerns. Only one study assessed glucose concentrations, and this was found to have low risk of bias (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

ROB-2 for umbilical cord milking outcomes

Full size image

In the studies assessing DCC, one study assessing hypoglycaemia had high risk of bias, and 4/6 (67%) had some concerns (Fig. 3). For admission to NICU some studies (43%) had some concerns, as did many of the studies assessing breastfeeding at discharge (60%). For glucose concentrations, none of the studies had high risk of bias but most (75%) had some concerns, as did those assessing length of stay (73%). For studies assessing neonatal mortality, many had high risk of bias (40%) or some concerns (53%). For neurodevelopmental outcomes, many studies had high risk of bias (46%) or some concerns (46%).

Fig. 3
figure 3

ROB-2 ROB-2 for delayed cord clamping outcomes

Full size image

Outcomes

Umbilical cord milking

Primary outcome

Hypoglycaemia

No studies reported the incidence of hypoglycaemia.

Blood glucose concentration

One study [32] of 58 preterm neonates (24 0/7 – 32 6/7 weeks) found blood glucose concentration on admission to neonatal unit was 3.1 ± 1.5 mmol/l (n = 27) in the UCM group compared to 2.7 ± 1.4 mmol/l in the DCC group (31 infants) (Mean Difference (MD) = 0.40 (-0.35 to 1.15), p = 0.30).

Secondary outcomes

Admission to neonatal intensive care unit

The evidence suggests that UCM may result in little to no difference in admission to NICU (3 studies [33,34,35], 336 infants, RR = 1.22, CI:0.37–4.08, p = 0.74, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Effect of umbilical cord milking on admission to neonatal intensive care unit

Full size image

Neurodevelopmental impairment

Evidence from two studies [36, 37] suggests that UCM does not reduce the risk of neurodevelopmental impairment at 18–26 months (196 infants, RR = 2.16, CI:0.73 to 6.37, p = 0.16, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Effect of umbilical cord milking on neurodevelopmental impairment at 18-26 months follow up

Full size image

A further five studies assessed the effect of UCM on neurodevelopmental outcomes at various ages [36,37,38,39,40], but meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogenous nature of the assessment methods and outcome interpretation. Of the five studies, one reported statistically significantly improved motor outcome after UCM at 18–22 months age [37]. The remaining four studies reported no difference in developmental outcomes between the intervention and control groups at 12 months [39], 22–26 months [36], 36 months [38] and 2 and 3.5 years [40].

Neonatal mortality

In the 11 studies [32, 41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50] that reported neonatal mortality data, 76/1 378 infants died before discharge Fig. 6) The evidence suggests that UCM results in little to no difference in neonatal mortality (RR = 0.79, CI:0.44 to 1.41, p = 0.42, I2 = 27%).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Effect of umbilical cord milking on neonatal mortality

Full size image

Length of hospital stay

Evidence from eight studies [32, 39, 41, 43, 47, 49, 51, 52] suggest that UCM may result in little to no difference in length of hospital stay (886 infants, MD = 1.20, CI: -1.76 to 4.16, p = 0.43, I2 = 26%, low certainty of evidence) (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Effect of umbilical cord milking on length of hospital stay

Full size image

Other outcomes

There were no data available for the effect of UCM on breastfeeding at discharge, incidence of hypoglycaemia, receipt of treatment for hypoglycaemia during initial hospital stay, number of episodes of hypoglycaemia, severity of hypoglycaemia, hypoglycaemic injury on brain imaging, NICU admission for hypoglycaemia, cost of intervention or cost of neonatal care.

Delayed cord clamping

Primary outcome

Incidence of hypoglycaemia

Evidence from six studies [53,54,55,56,57,58] suggests that DCC may result in little to no difference in neonatal hypoglycaemia (444 infants, RR = 0.87, CI:0.58 to 1.30, p = 0.49, I2 = 0%, low certainty of evidence) (Fig. 8). The definition of hypoglycaemia was not specified in two studies, blood glucose concentrations of < 2.2mmol/L in the first 4 h and/or < 2.5mmol/L at 3–24 h in two studies, < 2.0 mmol/L at 3 h in one study, and < 2.5mmol/L before a feed in one study. One study included term infants, one late preterm infant and four included preterm infants (Table 1).

Fig. 8
figure 8

Effect of delayed cord clamping on incidence of neonatal hypoglycaemia

Full size image

Blood glucose concentration

Evidence from eight studies [55, 57, 59,60,61,62,63,64] suggests that DCC may result in little to no difference in blood glucose concentrations during hospital stay (883 infants, MD = -0.07mmol/l, CI: -0.22 to 0.09, p = 0.40) (Fig. 9). Timing of blood glucose measurements varied between at birth and 24 h after birth (Table 1).

Fig. 9
figure 9

Effect of delayed cord clamping on blood glucose concentration

Full size image

Secondary outcomes

Admission to the neonatal intensive care unit

Evidence from 14 studies [2, 54, 65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76] suggests that DCC may result in little to no difference in admission to NICU (3122 infants, RR = 1.08, CI: 0.81 to 1.45, p = 0.59, I2 = 9%) (Fig. 10).

Fig. 10
figure 10

Effect of delayed cord clamping on admission to neonatal intensive care

Full size image

Admission to the neonatal intensive care unit for hypoglycaemia

DCC may result in little to no difference in admission to NICU for hypoglycaemia (RR 1.95 (0.18, 21.35); p = 0.58). One study [65] of term infants (37 0/7 – 41 6/7 weeks gestation), compared DCC (≥ 180 s) to ECC (≤ 10 s) and found 2/174 infants (1.1%) from the DCC group were admitted to NICU due to hypoglycaemia, compared to 1/170 infants (0.6%) in the ECC group. This evidence was graded as low certainty.

Receipt of treatment for hypoglycaemia during initial hospital stay

DCC may not reduce the receipt of treatment for hypoglycaemia during initial hospital stay RR 0.14 (0.01, 2.68) p = 0.19. One study of women with gestational diabetes who gave birth to term infants (> 37 weeks gestation) [54] reported that no infants in the DCC group (cord clamping 60 s after birth, n = 40) required treatment (defined as glucose infusion) for hypoglycaemia, compared to three infants in the ECC group (cord clamped as early as possible, n = 40). This evidence was graded as low certainty.

Severity of hypoglycaemia

The same study [54] reported that 0/40 infants in the DCC group had severe hypoglycaemia (blood glucose < 1.4 mmol/l), compared to 2/40 (5%) in the ECC group. This evidence was graded as low certainty. DCC may not reduce incidence of severe hypoglycaemia RR 0.20 (0.01, 4.04); p = 0.29.

Breastfeeding at discharge

DCC may result in little to no difference in breastfeeding at discharge (5 studies [70, 74, 77,78,79], 1 564 infants, RR = 1.04, CI:0.99 to 1.09, p = 0.14, I2 = 0%, low certainty evidence) (Fig. 11).

Fig. 11
figure 11

Effect of delayed cord clamping on breastfeeding at hospital discharge

Full size image

Neurodevelopmental impairment

Data from two studies and 1448 infants[80, 81] suggest that DCC results in little to no difference in neurodevelopmental impairment at 12–24 months (RR = 0.86, CI:0.71–1.04, p = 0.11, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 12).

Fig. 12
figure 12

Effect of delayed cord clamping on neurodevelopmental outcomes at 12-24 months follow up

Full size image

Similarly, evidence from two studies (673 infants) [82, 83] suggests that DCC results in little to no difference in neurodevelopmental impairment at 24–48 months (RR = 0.97, CI:0.76–1.24, p = 0.80, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 13).

Fig. 13
figure 13

Effect of delayed cord clamping on neurodevelopmental outcomes at 24-48 months follow up

Full size image

A further twelve studies [82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92] reported the effect of DCC on neurodevelopmental outcomes, but the methods of assessment and outcome reporting differed between studies, making it difficult to conduct a meta-analysis. Of the 12 studies, five reported statistically significantly improved outcome with DCC, whilst six reported no difference, and one reported a reduced score for personal-social development with DCC compared to ECC (Table 2).

Table 2 Summary of neurodevelopmental outcomes
Full size table

Neonatal mortality

In the meta-analysis of 15 studies [2, 53, 56, 58, 61, 71, 74, 77, 93,94,95,96,97,98], a total of 191 infants out of 3 041 died before hospital discharge (Fig. 14). DCC probably results in a reduction in neonatal mortality (RR = 0.73, CI:0.55 to 0.98, p = 0.03, I2 = 0%).

Fig. 14
figure 14

Effect of delayed cord clamping on neonatal mortality (at hospital discharge)

Full size image

Length of hospital stay

Data from 15 studies [55, 58, 61, 62, 67, 69,70,71, 77, 89, 93,94,95, 99, 100] and 2 082 infants suggest that DCC results in little to no difference in length of hospital stay (MD=-0.19 days, CI:-0.59 to 0.20, p=0.34, I2=53%, low certainty evidence) (Fig. 15).

Fig. 15
figure 15

Effect of delayed cord clamping on length of hospital stay

Full size image

Other outcomes

No data were available for the effects of DCC on hypoglycaemic injury on brain imaging, cost of intervention and cost of neonatal care.

Subgroup analysis

In subgroup analyses for gestational age (term vs preterm infants), timing of the cord clamping (30–60 s vs > 60 s), mother’s diabetes status (yes/no), hospital setting, and delivery method (vaginal vs caesarean) there were no significant interactions between any of the subgroups and the available outcome variables (Appendix 2). There was insufficient data on risk factors for hypoglycaemia to conduct this pre-planned sub-group analysis.

Certainty of evidence (GRADE assessment)

For UCM, the certainty of evidence was assessed as low for length of hospital stay and was downgraded one level due to some concerns of risk of bias in most of the studies, and one level for wide 95% CI and relatively low sample size (Table 3). There were no data for the effect of UCM on the other GRADE outcomes.

Table 3 GRADE summary findings table for umbilical cord milking outcome/s
Full size table

For DCC, the certainty of evidence was low for all GRADE outcomes due to some concerns of risk of bias (neonatal hypoglycaemia, breastfeeding at discharge), and wide 95% CI or small sample size (neonatal hypoglycaemia and length of hospital stay). No significant publication bias was detected for length of stay outcome based on the funnel plot (Appendix 3). Admission to NICU for hypoglycaemia, severity of hypoglycaemia and receipt of treatment for hypoglycaemia were all rated as low certainty due to data coming from a single study (Table 4).

Table 4 GRADE summary findings table for delayed cord clamping outcomes
Full size table

Discussion

Summary of main results

The two main placental transfusion strategies to improve red blood cell volume after birth are DCC and UCM. This systematic review included a total of 71 studies and data from 14 268 infants. Despite including more studies than all reviews to date [15, 17, 19, 101, 102], we found no evidence for the effect of UCM on incidence of hypoglycaemia, and only one small study showing no significant difference in blood glucose concentrations between UCM and DCC groups [32]. In line with findings from previous reviews, we also found no significant differences in UCM compared to control groups for neonatal mortality or length of hospital stay [19, 101, 102], and no difference in risk of neurological impairment. However, data from large, well-designed studies for hypoglycaemia outcomes are lacking.

The benefits of DCC are well known, and delaying the cord clamp by 60–120 s is recommended as best practice in preterm and term infants [103]. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to assess the effects of DCC on neonatal hypoglycaemia. We found that DCC may have little to no effect on the incidence of hypoglycaemia or blood glucose concentration, or on rate of NICU admission and breastfeeding at discharge. We found low certainty evidence from one study [65] that DCC may result in little to no difference in admission to NICU for hypoglycaemia compared to ECC. Data from another study showed that DCC may not effect receipt of treatment for hypoglycaemia and or severity of hypoglycaemia, compared with ECC [54].

There is evidence from several systematic reviews that DCC improves haemoglobin, iron levels and initial arterial blood pressure as well as reducing the risk of IVH and need for resuscitation compared to ECC [6, 8, 11, 104,105,106]. These effects also suggest that DCC has the potential to reduce hypoglycaemia, since many neonatal problems, including the need for resuscitation, hypotension and IVH, result in increased tissue glucose consumption. These effects also suggest that DCC may improve neurodevelopmental outcomes [107], However, we found no evidence that DCC altered either of these outcomes, possibly due to very limited data and substantial heterogeneity in study design.

This meta-analysis showed that DCC may reduce neonatal mortality (low certainty of evidence). This is in line with findings from studies of very preterm infants [108] and many similar reviews of preterm infants [104, 105], as well as a recent Cochrane review of evidence in preterm infants (average RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.98, moderate certainty) [11]. We also found no difference in length of hospital stay when comparing DCC with ECC (low quality of evidence). Although few systematic reviews to date have assessed this outcome, Li et al. [104] found that DCC reduced hospital stay by 3.79 days (95% CI = -4.16 to -3.42) compared to ECC. Their review included four studies of preterm infants only, which may account for the difference in findings.

Overall completeness and applicability of the evidence

Although this is the first study to synthesise the evidence for UCM and DCC and neonatal hypoglycaemia, there are several gaps in the data available for this review. Firstly, no data were found for the effect of UCM on our primary outcome of neonatal hypoglycaemia, and data were lacking for several other pre-specified secondary outcomes. Secondly, there was large heterogeneity in the intervention (UCM varied from 2–5 times for 10-20cm/s) and control (varied from ECC to DCC after 60 s) designs.

For DCC, six studies (444 infants) reported neonatal hypoglycaemia as an outcome, but the evidence was rated as low certainty due to concerns of bias and imprecision. There was considerable variation in the DCC (30 s to 8 min) versus control (immediately to 180 s) timing. However, subgroup analysis of timing of the cord clamping showed no significant interaction between the different timings.

Optimal timing for screening blood glucose is uncertain, and in our review, for both UCM and DCC studies, the timing of the measurement of blood glucose concentrations differed. For example, for the UCM study glucose was measured on admission, whilst for the DCC studies some measurements were taken at birth and others within the first 24 h. Since glucose concentrations change rapidly within the first few hours after birth [5, 109], the timing of blood glucose concentration measurements may have contributed to variability in the findings. Likewise, measurement of neurological outcomes differed considerably among the studies, making synthesis and meta-analysis of the data challenging. In addition, only one study assessed the effects of DCC on neonatal hypoglycaemia outcomes such as severity, admission to NICU, and treatment received. This review also excluded studies of non-vigorous infants, and those requiring resuscitation, therefore the evidence may not be generalisable to this population.

Quality of the evidence

The certainty of evidence was graded as low for all specified outcomes. As with most placental transition interventions [11], blinding the clinicians to the allocated intervention is not possible, although some studies did blind the outcome measurement. For many of the UCM studies, the sample sizes were small leading to imprecision. Similarly, many of the studies comparing the incidence of hypoglycaemia between DCC and ECC groups had small sample sizes. For many other neonatal hypoglycaemia-related outcomes, data were only available from one study.

Quality of the review

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first review to investigate the impact of UCM and DCC on neonatal hypoglycaemia as a primary outcome. The large number of RCTs included in the review, more than any other review of UCM or DCC, is a key strength. However, the review does have certain limitations. Firstly, no data were found for the effects of UCM on incidence of hypoglycaemia, and only one study reported blood glucose concentrations. There was more evidence for the effects of DCC, with six studies assessing incidence of hypoglycaemia and eight studies measuring blood glucose concentrations. However, sample sizes were small, and the CIs were relatively large, therefore the results need to be interpreted with caution. Secondly, although there is potential for bias within the review process, we did take steps to minimise this by using at least two authors to independently screen, extraction, and assessment of quality. A third author was included for any discrepancies.

Conclusion

Data are lacking from large, well-designed studies assessing the effects of various placental transfusion strategies on neonatal hypoglycaemia. We found no studies assessing the effects of UCM on neonatal hypoglycaemia, and no evidence that DCC altered the incidence of neonatal hypoglycaemia compared to ECC. Although there are many other benefits of UCM and DCC, more high-quality studies are needed to enable reliable conclusions about their effect on hypoglycaemia.

Availability of data and materials

Data access requests are to be submitted to the Data Access Committee via researchhub@auckland.ac.nz. Data will be shared with researchers with a sound proposal on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

DCC:

Delayed cord clamping

ECC:

Early cord clamping

GRADE:

Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation

IVH:

Intraventricular haemorrhage

MD:

Mean Difference

NICU:

Neonatal intensive care unit

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis

PROSPERO:

Prospective register of systematic reviews

RCTs:

Randomised controlled trials

RoB-2:

Risk of Bias tool

RR:

Risk Ratio

SD:

Standard Deviation

UCM:

Umbilical cord milking

References

  1. Dani C, Corsini I. Guidelines for management of neonatal hypoglycemia: are they actually applicable? JAMA Pediatr. 2020;174(7):638–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. De Angelis LC, Brigati G, Polleri G, Malova M, Parodi A, Minghetti D, Rossi A, Massirio P, Traggiai C, Maghnie M. Neonatal hypoglycemia and brain vulnerability. Front Endocrinol. 2021;12:634305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Stark J, Simma B, Blassnig-Ezeh A. Incidence of hypoglycemia in newborn infants identified as at risk. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;33(18):3091–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Harris DL, Weston PJ, Harding JE. Incidence of neonatal hypoglycemia in babies identified as at risk. J Pediatr. 2012;161(5):787–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Edwards T, Harding JE. Clinical aspects of neonatal hypoglycemia: a mini review. Front Pediatr. 2021;8:562251.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. McDonald SJ, Middleton P, Dowswell T, Morris PS. Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping of term infants on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Evidence-Based Child Health: A Cochrane Review Journal. 2014;9(2):303–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rabe H, Reynolds GJ, Diaz‐Rosello JL. Early versus delayed umbilical cord clamping in preterm infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;4:CD003248. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003248.pub2.

  8. Rabe H, Reynolds G, Diaz-Rossello J. A systematic review and meta-analysis of a brief delay in clamping the umbilical cord of preterm infants. Neonatology. 2008;93(2):138–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Brocato B, Holliday N, Whitehurst RM Jr, Lewis D, Varner S. Delayed cord clamping in preterm neonates: a review of benefits and risks. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2016;71(1):39–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fogarty M, Osborn DA, Askie L, Seidler AL, Hunter K, Lui K, Simes J, Tarnow-Mordi W. Delayed vs early umbilical cord clamping for preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(1):1–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rabe H, Gyte GML, Díaz‐Rossello JL, Duley L. Effect of timing of umbilical cord clamping and other strategies to influence placental transfusion at preterm birth on maternal and infant outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;9:CD003248. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003248.pub4.

  12. WHO. Guideline: Delayed umbilical cord clamping for improved maternal and infant health and nutrition outcomes. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.

  13. Obstetricians ACo, Gynecologists, Practice CoO. Delayed umbilical cord clamping after birth: ACOG Committee opinion, number 814. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136(6):e100–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Katheria AC. Umbilical cord milking: a review. Front Pediatr. 2018;6:335.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Jeevan A, Ananthan A, Bhuwan M, Balasubramanian H, Rao S, Kabra NS. Umbilical cord milking versus delayed cord clamping in term and late-preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022;35(25):5478–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Basile S, Pinelli S, Micelli E, Caretto M, Benedetti Panici P. Milking of the umbilical cord in term and late preterm infants. BioMed Res Int. 2019;2019:9185059.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Fuwa K, Tabata N, Ogawa R, Nagano N, Yamaji N, Ota E, Namba F. Umbilical cord milking versus delayed cord clamping in term infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Perinatol. 2021;41(7):1549–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Al-Wassia H, Shah PS. Efficacy and safety of umbilical cord milking at birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(1):18–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nagano N, Saito M, Sugiura T, Miyahara F, Namba F, Ota E. Benefits of umbilical cord milking versus delayed cord clamping on neonatal outcomes in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2018;13(8):e0201528.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Koo J, Kilicdag H, Katheria A. Umbilical cord milking-benefits and risks. Front Pediatr. 2023;11:581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Senior B. Neonatal hypoglycemia. N Engl J Med. 1973;289(15):790–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sperling MA, Menon RK. Differential diagnosis and management of neonatal hypoglycemia. Pediatr Clin. 2004;51(3):703–23.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Alsaleem M, Saadeh L, Kamat D. Neonatal hypoglycemia: a review. Clin Pediatr. 2019;58(13):1381–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Higgins JP, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd Edition. Chichester: Wiley; 2019.

  25. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg. 2021;88:105906.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia. Available at www.covidence.org.

  27. Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Cheng H-Y, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Collaboration TC. RevMan Web In.. 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Glasziou P, DeBeer H. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mundial B. World bank country and lending groups. Country Classification. 2018. Recuperado de https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519.

  32. Rabe H, Jewison A, Alvarez RF, Crook D, Stilton D, Bradley R, Holden D, Group BPS. Milking compared with delayed cord clamping to increase placental transfusion in preterm neonates: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetr Gynecol. 2011;117(2 Part 1):205–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Erickson-Owens D, Mercer J, Oh W. Umbilical cord milking in term infants delivered by cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial. J Perinatol. 2012;32(8):580–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kumawat AK, Meena KK, Athwani V, Gothwal S, Gupta ML, Sitaraman S, Bairwa G. Effect of Umbilical Cord Milking in Term and Late Preterm Neonates: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Perinatology. 2022;22(4):258–65.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mangla MK, Thukral A, Sankar MJ, Agarwal R, Deorari AK, Paul V. Effect of umbilical cord milking vs delayed cord clamping on venous hematocrit at 48 hours in late preterm and term neonates: a randomized controlled trial. Indian Pediatr. 2020;57:1119–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Katheria A, Garey D, Truong G, Akshoomoff N, Steen J, Maldonado M, Poeltler D, Harbert MJ, Vaucher YE, Finer N. A randomized clinical trial of umbilical cord milking vs delayed cord clamping in preterm infants: neurodevelopmental outcomes at 22–26 months of corrected age. J Pediatr. 2018;194:76–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mercer JS, Erickson-Owens DA, Vohr BR, Tucker RJ, Parker AB, Oh W, Padbury JF. Effects of placental transfusion on neonatal and 18 month outcomes in preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr. 2016;168(50–55):e51.

    Google Scholar 

  38. El-Naggar W, McMillan D, Hussain A, Armson A, Dodds L, Warren A, Whyte R, Vincer M, Simpson CD. Neurodevelopmental outcomes of very preterm infants who received cord milking at birth: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Pediatr. 2022;181(12):4215–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Chellappan MV, Divakaran D, George N, Varghese PR, Unnikrishnan UG, Vellore M, Maya KN, Martin D. 1061 Long term effects of milking of cut umbilical cord in very preterm neonates: a randomised controlled trial in Southern India. Arch Dis Child. 2022;107(Suppl 2):A178–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2022-rcpch.286.

  40. Rabe H, Sawyer A, Amess P, Ayers S, Group BPS. Neurodevelopmental outcomes at 2 and 3.5 years for very preterm babies enrolled in a randomized trial of milking the umbilical cord versus delayed cord clamping. Neonatology. 2016;109(2):113–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Atia H, Badawie A, Elsaid O, Kashef M, Alhaddad N, Gomaa M. The hematological impact of umbilical cord milking versus delayed cord clamping in premature neonates: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Elimian A, Goodman J, Escobedo M, Nightingale L, Knudtson E, Williams M. Immediate compared with delayed cord clamping in the preterm neonate: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124(6):1075–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. El-Naggar W, Simpson D, Hussain A, Armson A, Dodds L, Warren A, Whyte R, McMillan D. Cord milking versus immediate clamping in preterm infants: a randomised controlled trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2019;104(2):F145–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Hosono S, Mugishima H, Fujita H, Hosono A, Minato M, Okada T, Takahashi S, Harada K. Umbilical cord milking reduces the need for red cell transfusions and improves neonatal adaptation in infants born at less than 29 weeks’ gestation: a randomised controlled trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2008;93(1):F14–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Katheria AC, Leone TA, Woelkers D, Garey DM, Rich W, Finer NN. The effects of umbilical cord milking on hemodynamics and neonatal outcomes in premature neonates. J Pediatr. 2014;164(5):1045–1050.e1041.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Katheria AC, Truong G, Cousins L, Oshiro B, Finer NN. Umbilical cord milking versus delayed cord clamping in preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2015;136(1):61–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Krueger MS, Eyal FG, Peevy KJ, Hamm CR, Whitehurst RM, Lewis DF. Delayed cord clamping with and without cord stripping: a prospective randomized trial of preterm neonates. Am J Obstetr Gynecol. 2015;212(3):394.e391–394.e395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Shirk SK, Manolis SA, Lambers DS, Smith KL. Delayed clamping vs milking of umbilical cord in preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstetr Gynecol. 2019;220(5):482.e481–482.e488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Song S-Y, Kim Y, Kang B-H, Yoo H-J, Lee M. Safety of umbilical cord milking in very preterm neonates: a randomized controlled study. Obstetr Gynecol Sci. 2017;60(6):527–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Xie Y-J, Xiao J-L, Zhu J-J, Wang Y-W, Wang B, Xie L-J. Effects of umbilical cord milking on anemia in preterm infants: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Am J Perinatol. 2020;39(01):031–6.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Panburana P, Odthon T, Pongmee P, Hansahiranwadee W. The Effect of Umbilical Cord Milking Compared with Delayed Cord Clamping in Term Neonates: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Womens Health. 2020;12:301–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Silahli M, Duman E, Gokmen Z, Toprak E, Gokdemir M, Ecevit A. The relationship between placental transfusion, and thymic size and neonatal morbidities in premature infants - A Randomized Control Trial. J Pak Med Assoc. 2018;68(11):1560–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Chopra A, Thakur A, Garg P, Kler N, Gujral K. Early versus delayed cord clamping in small for gestational age infants and iron stores at 3 months of age-a randomized controlled trial. BMC Pediatr. 2018;18:1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Korkut S, Oğuz Y, Bozkaya D, Türkmen GG, Kara Ö, Uygur D, Oğuz ŞS. Evaluation of the effects of delayed cord clamping in infants of diabetic mothers. Am J Perinatol. 2019;38(03):242–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Mercer JS, McGrath MM, Hensman A, Silver H, Oh W. Immediate and delayed cord clamping in infants born between 24 and 32 weeks: a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Perinatol. 2003;23(6):466–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Ranjit T, Nesargi S, Rao PS, Sahoo JP, Ashok C, Chandrakala B, Bhat S. Effect of early versus delayed cord clamping on hematological status of preterm infants at 6 wk of age. Ind J Pediatr. 2015;82:29–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Ultee C, Van Der Deure J, Swart J, Lasham C, Van Baar A. Delayed cord clamping in preterm infants delivered at 34–36 weeks’ gestation: a randomised controlled trial. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2008;93(1):F20–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Yunis M, Nour I, Gibreel A, Darwish M, Sarhan M, Shouman B, Nasef N. Effect of delayed cord clamping on stem cell transfusion and hematological parameters in preterm infants with placental insufficiency: a pilot randomized trial. Eur J Pediatr. 2021;180:157–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Cavallin F, Galeazzo B, Loretelli V, Madella S, Pizzolato M, Visentin S, Trevisanuto D. Delayed cord clamping versus early cord clamping in elective cesarean section: a randomized controlled trial. Neonatology. 2019;116(3):252–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. De Bernardo G, Giordano M, De Santis R, Castelli P, Sordino D, Trevisanuto D, Buonocore G, Perrone S. A randomized controlled study of immediate versus delayed umbilical cord clamping in infants born by elective caesarean section. Ital J Pediatr. 2020;46(1):1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Kugelman A, Borenstein-Levin L, Riskin A, Chistyakov I, Ohel G, Gonen R, Bader D. Immediate versus delayed umbilical cord clamping in premature neonates born < 35 weeks: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Am J Perinatol. 2007;24(5):307–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Ruangkit C, Bumrungphuet S, Panburana P, Khositseth A, Nuntnarumit P. A randomized controlled trial of immediate versus delayed umbilical cord clamping in multiple-birth infants born preterm. Neonatology. 2019;115(2):156–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Shao H, Lan Y, Qian Y, Chen R, Peng L, Hua Y, Wang X. Effect of later cord clamping on umbilical cord blood gas in term neonates of diabetic mothers: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Pediatr. 2022;22(1):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Soliman RM, Elgendy MM, Said RN, Shaarawy BI, Helal OM, Aly H. A Randomized Controlled Trial of a 30- versus a 120-Second Delay in Cord Clamping after Term Birth. Am J Perinatol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1772-4543. Epub ahead of print.

  65. Andersson O, Hellström-Westas L, Andersson D, Domellöf M. Effect of delayed versus early umbilical cord clamping on neonatal outcomes and iron status at 4 months: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2011;343:d7157.

  66. Çelikel ÖÖ, Altuntaş N, Aksoy N. Effect of cord clamping time on neonatal vitamin B12, folate and urinary iodine concentration. Ginekol Pol. 2022;93(4):302–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Cernadas JMC, Carroli G, Lardizábal J. Effect of timing of cord clamping on neonatal venous hematocrit values and clinical outcome at term: a randomized, controlled trial: in reply. Pediatrics. 2006;118(3):1318–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Chen X, Li X, Chang Y, Li W, Cui H. Effect and safety of timing of cord clamping on neonatal hematocrit values and clinical outcomes in term infants: a randomized controlled trial. J Perinatol. 2018;38(3):251–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Digal KC, Singh P, Srivastava Y, Chaturvedi J, Tyagi AK, Basu S. Effects of delayed cord clamping in intrauterine growth–restricted neonates: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Pediatr. 2021;180:1701–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Feitosa KMA. Clampeamento do cordão umbilical após parar de pulsar vs. Com um a três minutos e desfechos maternos e neonatais: ensaio clínico randomizado. 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Jomjak P, Inploy N, Prommas S, Smanchat B, Pongrojpaw D, Bhamarapravatana K, Suwannaruk K. Effect of Delayed Cord Clamping Reduced Anemic Outcome in Preterm Neonate. J Med Assoc Thai. 2021;104(5):695–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Purisch SE, Ananth CV, Arditi B, Mauney L, Ajemian B, Heiderich A, Leone T, Gyamfi-Bannerman C. Effect of delayed vs immediate umbilical cord clamping on maternal blood loss in term cesarean delivery: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;322(19):1869–76.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Rashwan A, Eldaly A, El-Harty A, Elsherbini M, Abdel-Rasheed M, Eid MM. Delayed versus early umbilical cord clamping for near-term infants born to preeclamptic mothers; a randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22(1):515.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Shinohara E, Kataoka Y, Yaju Y. Effects of timing of umbilical cord clamping on preventing early infancy anemia in low-risk Japanese term infants with planned breastfeeding: a randomized controlled trial. Matern Health Neonatol Perinatol. 2021;7:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Songthamwat S, Witsawapaisan P, Saenpoch S, Tanthawat S, Summart U, Songthamwat M. Comparison of Incidence of Neonatal Anemia in Different Timing of Delayed Cord Clamping; at 30 Seconds, 1 Minute and 2 Minutes in Term Vaginal Delivery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Assoc Thai. 2020;103(12):1255–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Songthamwat M, Witsawapaisan P, Tanthawat S, Songthamwat S. Effect of Delayed Cord Clamping at 30 Seconds and 1 Minute on Neonatal Hematocrit in Term Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized Trial. Int J Womens Health. 2020;2020(12):481–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Duley L, Dorling J, Pushpa-Rajah A, Oddie SJ, Yoxall CW, Schoonakker B, Bradshaw L, Mitchell EJ, Fawke JA. Randomised trial of cord clamping and initial stabilisation at very preterm birth. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018;103(1):F6–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Mercer JS, Erickson-Owens DA, Collins J, Barcelos MO, Parker AB, Padbury JF. Effects of delayed cord clamping on residual placental blood volume, hemoglobin and bilirubin levels in term infants: a randomized controlled trial. J Perinatol. 2017;37(3):260–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Group OMR. A study of the relationship between the delivery to cord clamping interval and the time of cord separation. Midwifery. 1991;7(4):167–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Armstrong-Buisseret L, Powers K, Dorling J, Bradshaw L, Johnson S, Mitchell E, Duley L. Randomised trial of cord clamping at very preterm birth: outcomes at 2 years. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2020;105(3):292–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Robledo KP, Tarnow-Mordi WO, Rieger I, Suresh P, Martin A, Yeung C, Ghadge A, Liley HG, Osborn D, Morris J. Effects of delayed versus immediate umbilical cord clamping in reducing death or major disability at 2 years corrected age among very preterm infants (APTS): a multicentre, randomised clinical trial. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2022;6(3):150–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Berg JHM, Isacson M, Basnet O, Gurung R, Subedi K, Kc A, Andersson O. Effect of delayed cord clamping on neurodevelopment at 3 years: a randomized controlled trial. Neonatology. 2021;118(3):282–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Das B, Sundaram V, Tarnow-Mordi W, Ghadge A, Dhaliwal LK, Kumar P. Placental transfusion in preterm neonates of 30–33 weeks’ gestation: a randomized controlled trial. J Perinatol. 2018;38(5):496–504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Datta BV, Kumar A, Yadav R. A randomized controlled trial to evaluate the role of brief delay in cord clamping in preterm neonates (34–36 weeks) on short-term neurobehavioural outcome. J Trop Pediatr. 2017;63(6):418–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Andersson O, Domellöf M, Andersson D, Hellström-Westas L. Effects of delayed cord clamping on neurodevelopment and infection at four months of age: a randomised trial. Acta Paediatr. 2013;102(5):525–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Nouraie S, Akbari SA, Vameghi R, Baghban AA. The effect of the timing of umbilical cord clamping on hemoglobin levels, neonatal outcomes and developmental status in infants at 4 months old. Iran J Child Neurol. 2019;13(1):45.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Mercer JS, Vohr BR, Erickson-Owens DA, Padbury JF, Oh W. Seven-month developmental outcomes of very low birth weight infants enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of delayed versus immediate cord clamping. J Perinatol. 2010;30(1):11–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Andersson O, Domellöf M, Andersson D, Hellström-Westas L. Effect of delayed vs early umbilical cord clamping on iron status and neurodevelopment at age 12 months: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(6):547–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Rana A, Agarwal K, Ramji S, Gandhi G, Sahu L. Safety of delayed umbilical cord clamping in preterm neonates of less than 34 weeks of gestation: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetr Gynecol Sci. 2018;61(6):655–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Andersson O, Lindquist B, Lindgren M, Stjernqvist K, Domellöf M, Hellström-Westas L. Effect of delayed cord clamping on neurodevelopment at 4 years of age: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(7):631–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Mercer JS, Erickson-Owens DA, Deoni SC, Dean DC III, Collins J, Parker AB, Wang M, Joelson S, Mercer EN, Padbury JF. Effects of delayed cord clamping on 4-month ferritin levels, brain myelin content, and neurodevelopment: a randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr. 2018;203(266–272):e262.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Mercer JS, Erickson-Owens DA, Deoni SC, Dean DC III, Tucker R, Parker AB, Joelson S, Mercer EN, Collins J, Padbury JF. The effects of delayed cord clamping on 12-month brain myelin content and neurodevelopment: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Perinatol. 2020;39(01):037–44.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Armanian A-M, Ghasemi Tehrani H, Ansari M, Ghaemi S. Is “delayed umbilical cord clamping” beneficial for premature newborns. Int J Pediatr. 2017;5(5):4909–18.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Backes CH, Huang H, Iams JD, Bauer JA, Giannone PJ. Timing of umbilical cord clamping among infants born at 22 through 27 weeks’ gestation. J Perinatol. 2016;36(1):35–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Hemmati F, Sharma D, Namavar Jahromi B, Salarian L, Farahbakhsh N. Delayed cord clamping for prevention of intraventricular hemorrhage in preterm neonates: a randomized control trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022;35(19):3633–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Hofmeyr G, Bolton KD, Bowen DC, Govan J. Periventricular/intraventricular haemorrhage and umbilical cord clamping-findings and hypothesis. S Afr Med J. 1988;73(2):104–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Hofmeyr GJ, Gobetz L, Bex PJ, Van der Griendt M, Nikodem C, Skapinker R, Delahunt T. Periventricular/intraventricular hemorrhage following early and delayed umbilical cord clamping. A randomized controlled trial. Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1993;110. [2002 words; 26 paragraphs]. PMID: 8305996.

  98. Tarnow-Mordi W, Morris J, Kirby A, Robledo K, Askie L, Brown R, Evans N, Finlayson S, Fogarty M, Gebski V. Delayed versus immediate cord clamping in preterm infants. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(25):2445–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Krishnan L, Kommu PPK, Thomas BJ, Akila B, Daniel M. Should delayed cord clamping be the standard of care in term low risk deliveries? A randomized controlled trial from a medical college hospital in south India. J Clin Neonatol. 2015;4(3):183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Vural I, Ozdemir H, Teker G, Yoldemir T, Bilgen H, Ozek E. Delayed cord clamping in term large-for-gestational age infants: A prospective randomised study. J Paediatr Child Health. 2019;55(5):555–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Ortiz-Esquinas I, Rodríguez-Almagro J, Gómez-Salgado J, Arias-Arias Á, Ballesta-Castillejos A, Hernández-Martínez A. Effects of cord milking in late preterm infants and full-term infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Birth. 2020;47(3):259–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Balasubramanian H, Ananthan A, Jain V, Rao SC, Kabra N. Umbilical cord milking in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2020;105(6):572–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. McDonald SD, Narvey M, Ehman W, Jain V, Cassell K. Guideline No. 424: umbilical cord management in preterm and term infants. J Obstetr Gynaecol Canada. 2022;44(3):313–322.e311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Li J, Yang S, Yang F, Wu J, Xiong F. Immediate vs delayed cord clamping in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pract. 2021;75(11):e14709.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Jasani B, Torgalkar R, Xiang YY, Syed S, Shah PS. Association of umbilical cord management strategies with outcomes of preterm infants: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2021;175(4):e210102–e210102.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Zhao Y, Hou R, Zhu X, Ren L, Lu H. Effects of delayed cord clamping on infants after neonatal period: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2019;92:97–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Surak A, Elsayed Y. Delayed cord clamping: Time for physiologic implementation. J Neonatal Perinatal Med. 2022;15(1):19–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Backes CH, Rivera BK, Haque U, Bridge JA, Smith CV, Hutchon DJ, Mercer JS. Placental transfusion strategies in very preterm neonates: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124(1):47–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Vain NE, Chiarelli F. Neonatal hypoglycaemia: a never-ending story? Neonatology. 2021;118(5):522–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Evie Southwell for her help with refining the search strategy.

Funding

We received no funding from any organisation for preparing this review. Partial funding for salaries has been provided by the Health Research Council of New Zealand (19/690, JH, CC), the Aotearoa Foundation (9909494, LL), the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH R01HD091075, LR) and the New Zealand Ministry of Business and Employment (EW). The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NICHD or the NIH.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Liggins Institute, The University of Auckland, 85 Park Road, Grafton, Auckland, 1023, New Zealand

    Estelle D. Watson, Lily F Roberts, Jane E Harding, Caroline A Crowther & Luling Lin

Authors
  1. Estelle D. Watson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lily F Roberts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jane E Harding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Caroline A Crowther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Luling Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualisation and initial design of study: all authors; Search strategy and screening of studies: EW, LR; Data extraction and risk of bias assessment: EW, LL; Interpretation and review of data: EW, LL, LR; Initial draft: EW; Critical revision and approval of the final copy: all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luling Lin.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Watson, E.D., Roberts, L.F., Harding, J.E. et al. Umbilical cord milking and delayed cord clamping for the prevention of neonatal hypoglycaemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 24, 248 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06427-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06427-w

Keywords

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

ISSN: 1471-2393

Contact us