↓ Skip to main content

Factors associated with timing of umbilical cord clamping in tertiary hospital of Nepal

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Factors associated with timing of umbilical cord clamping in tertiary hospital of Nepal
Published in
BMC Research Notes, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13104-018-3198-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Viktoria Nelin, Ashish KC, Ola Andersson, Nisha Rana, Mats Målqvist

Abstract

Delayed umbilical cord clamping (DCC) (≥ 60 s) is recognized to improve iron status and neurodevelopment compared to early umbilical cord clamping. The aim of this study is to identify current umbilical cord clamping practice and factors determining the timing of clamping in a low-resource setting where prevalence of anemia in infants is high. A cross-sectional study design including 128 observations of clinical practice in a tertiary-level maternity hospital in Kathmandu, Nepal. Overall 48% of infants received DCC. The mean and median cord clamping times were 61 ± 33 and 57 (38-79) s, respectively. Univariate analysis showed that infants born during the night shift were five times more likely to receive DCC (OR 5.6, 95% CI 1.4-38.0). Additionally, infants born after an obstetric complication were 2.5 times more likely to receive DCC (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.2-5.3), and babies requiring ventilation had a 65% lower likelihood of receiving DCC (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13-0.88). Despite the existence of standard protocols for cord clamping and its proven benefit, the lack of uniformity in the timing of cord clamping reveals poor translation of clinical guidelines into clinical practice. Clinical trial registration ISRCTN97846009.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 13%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Lecturer 4 5%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 32 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 18%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Psychology 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 36 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 February 2018.
All research outputs
#20,465,050
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,579
of 4,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#377,720
of 440,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#104
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,283 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 440,208 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.