Dipak 2017.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial using variable blocks of 3 and 6
Participants	Inclusion criteria Mothers at 27 to 316/7 weeks' gestation Singleton pregnancies N = 78 women and babies Exclusion criteria Births > 32 weeks' gestation; multiple births, Rh‐ve status, placenta previa or abruption‐placenta, and those having fetus with major congenital anomalies, hydrops, fetal growth restriction with abnormal Doppler waveforms, or evidence of fetal distress.
Interventions	Intervention 1: DCC Cord clamped at 60 secs Neonates were held in a pre‐warmed towel approximately 10‐15 inches below the introitus at vaginal delivery/below the level of placental incision in caesarean delivery. N = 26 babies Intervention 2: DCC + IM ergometrine to mother Cord clamped at 60 secs Neonates were held 10‐15 inches below the introitus at vaginal birth/below the level of placental incision in CS. Injection ergometrine 500 μg intramuscular (IM) was administered to the mother. N = 25 babies We pooled data from Interventions 1 and 2. Comparator: ECC Cord clamped within 10 secs Baby was held supine at level of introitus/placental incision. N = 27 babies Additional information Gestational subgroup: < 32‐34 weeks' gestation Resuscitation with cord intact: not available Access to NICU: yes Length of delay: about 60 secs Baby placed: no information Uterotonic: no information UCM: n/a Comparison 1 DCC with neonatal resuscitation after cord clamping vs ECC (subgroup by gestation) Subgroup 1: < 32‐34 weeks' gestation Comparison 4 DCC with neonatal resuscitation after cord clamping vs ECC (subgroup by type intervention) Subgroup 4: DCC at 1‐2 mins with baby low (+ gravity)
Outcomes	Primary outcome Hct at 4 hrs of age Secondary outcomes Temperature on admission Heart rate NIBP at 12 hrs Urinary output for initial 72 hrs Number of red cell transfusions Total serum bilirubin (TSB) at 72 hrs Peak serum bilirubin (PSB) Evidence of RoP, IVH LOS, N NEC stage 2 or more
Notes	Setting: tertiary care hospital, Mumbai, India Dates: October 2012 to September 2013 Declaration of interest: no competing interests reported Trial funding source: Quote: "None".
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: “…random number sequence with variable block size of 3 or 6 using a ‘Random Allocation Software’ program... The random allocation sequence was generated by a statistician who was not a part of the study.”
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: “The sequence was concealed in serially numbered, opaque, sealed and identical envelopes.”
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	It was not possible to blind clinicians.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	There is no information regarding blinding of outcome assessments. The laboratory data could have been blinded but it is unclear about clinical outcomes.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Data reported as complete
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	We did not assess trial protocol
Other bias	Unclear risk	No other biases apparent but not really clear.