Comparison of the effectiveness of different umbilical cord care in infants: A protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

Yi Shang, Yue Sun, Yi Shang, Yue Sun

Abstract

Background: More and more studies were performed to explore the effectiveness of umbilical cord care practices. However, the results remain controversial. Hence, the aim of the review was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of different umbilical cord care in infants through network meta-analysis.

Methods: A systematic literature search for relevant articles published in the English language will be conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database from their inception to December 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness of different types of umbilical cord care practices will be included. Cord infection, illness, and death will be used to assess the clinical effect. Risk of bias assessment of the included RCTs will be conducted by the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The WinBUGS 1.4.3 software will be used to perform the network meta-analysis and the result figures will be generated by STATA V.15.0 software. Grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation will be used to assess the quality of evidence.

Results: The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Conclusion: This will be the first network meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of different umbilical cord care in infants. Our study will generate evidence of cord care for infants and provide suggestions for clinical practice or guideline.

Prospero registration number: CRD42018118052.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

    1. Koopmans L, Wilson T, Cacciatore J, et al. Support for mothers, fathers and families after perinatal death. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;19:CD000452.
    1. Li J, Laursen TM, Precht DH, et al. Hospitalization for mental illness among parents after the death of a child. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1190–6.
    1. Rogers CH, Floyd FJ, Seltzer MM, et al. Long-term effects of the death of a child on parents’ adjustment in midlife. J Fam Psychol 2008;22:203–11.
    1. Rabe H, Diaz-Rossello JL, Duley L, et al. 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 2012;15:CD003248.
    1. Lawn JE, Cousens S, Zupan J, et al. 4 million neonatal deaths: when? Where? Why? Lancet 2005;365:891–900.
    1. Mullany LC, Darmstadt GL, Katz J, et al. Risk of mortality subsequent to umbilical cord infection among newborns of southern Nepal: cord infection and mortality. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2009;28:17–20.
    1. The WHO Reproductive Health Library, Capurro H. Topical Umbilical Cord Care at Birth: RHL Commentary. 2004.
    1. AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases. Red Book: A Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases. 26th ed. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2003.
    1. World Health Organization. Care of the Umbilical Cord: A Review of the Evidence. WHO, Maternal and Newborn Health Safe Motherhood. Geneva: WHO; 1999.
    1. Imdad A, Bautista RM, Senen KA, et al. Umbilical cord antiseptics for preventing sepsis and death among newborns. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;5:CD008635.
    1. Gras-Le Guen C, Caille A, Launay E, et al. Dry care versus antiseptics for umbilical cord care: a cluster randomized trial. Pediatrics 2017;139: pii: e20161857.
    1. Karumbi J, Mulaku M, Aluvaala J, et al. Topical umbilical cord care for prevention of infection and neonatal mortality. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2014;32:78–83.
    1. Ozdemir H1, Bilgen H, Topuzoglu A, et al. Impact of different antiseptics on umbilical cord colonization and cord separation time. J Infect Dev Ctries 2017;11:152–7.
    1. Li L, Catalá-López F, Alonso-Arroyo A, et al. The global research collaboration of network meta-analysis: a social network analysis. PLoS One 2016;11:e0163239.
    1. Bafeta A, Trinquart L, Seror R, et al. Reporting of results from network meta-analyses: methodological systematic review. BMJ 2014;348:g1741.
    1. Turner RM, Davey J, Clarke MJ, et al. Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int J Epidemiol 2012;41:818–27.
    1. Tian JH, Zhang J, Ge L, et al. The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews from China and the USA are similar. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;85:50–8.
    1. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994;50:1088–101.
    1. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629–34.
    1. Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, et al. WinBUGS — a Bayesian modeling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat Comput 2000;10:325–37.
    1. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004;23:3105–24.
    1. Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods 2012;3:80–97.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다