↓ Skip to main content

The timing of umbilical cord clamping at birth: physiological considerations

Overview of attention for article published in Maternal Health, Neonatology and Perinatology, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
5 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The timing of umbilical cord clamping at birth: physiological considerations
Published in
Maternal Health, Neonatology and Perinatology, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40748-016-0032-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stuart B. Hooper, Corinna Binder-Heschl, Graeme R. Polglase, Andrew W. Gill, Martin Kluckow, Euan M. Wallace, Douglas Blank, Arjan B. te Pas

Abstract

While it is now recognized that umbilical cord clamping (UCC) at birth is not necessarily an innocuous act, there is still much confusion concerning the potential benefits and harms of this common procedure. It is most commonly assumed that delaying UCC will automatically result in a time-dependent net placental-to-infant blood transfusion, irrespective of the infant's physiological state. Whether or not this occurs, will likely depend on the infant's physiological state and not on the amount of time that has elapsed between birth and umbilical cord clamping (UCC). However, we believe that this is an overly simplistic view of what can occur during delayed UCC and ignores the benefits associated with maintaining the infant's venous return and cardiac output during transition. Recent experimental evidence and observations in humans have provided compelling evidence to demonstrate that time is not a major factor influencing placental-to-infant blood transfusion after birth. Indeed, there are many factors that influence blood flow in the umbilical vessels after birth, which depending on the dominating factors could potentially result in infant-to-placental blood transfusion. The most dominant factors that influence umbilical artery and venous blood flows after birth are lung aeration, spontaneous inspirations, crying and uterine contractions. It is still not entirely clear whether gravity differentially alters umbilical artery and venous flows, although the available data suggests that its influence, if present, is minimal. While there is much support for delaying UCC at birth, much of the debate has focused on a time-based approach, which we believe is misguided. While a time-based approach is much easier and convenient for the caregiver, ignoring the infant's physiology during delayed UCC can potentially be counter-productive for the infant.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 24%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Unspecified 5 7%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 15 20%
Unknown 17 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 45%
Unspecified 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Engineering 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 20 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 20 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,131,770
of 22,931,367 outputs
Outputs from Maternal Health, Neonatology and Perinatology
#5
of 83 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,248
of 352,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Maternal Health, Neonatology and Perinatology
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,931,367 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 83 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 352,960 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them