Kumar 2015.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial
Participants	Inclusion criteria Babies born between 32 0/7 and 36 6/7 gestation Born vaginally or by lower segment CS Singleton pregnancies N = 200 babies (but 10 lost to follow‐up) Exclusion criteria Umbilical cord length less than 25 cm, or were non‐vigorous at birth. Multiple births (twins, triplets), those born to Rh negative or retrovirus positive mothers, hydrops fetalis and those with major congenital anomalies, cord prolapse or cord anomalies like true knots were also excluded. Babies born to mothers with complications such as placental abruption, placental implantation disorders (placenta previa or accreta) or chorioamnionitis were excluded only if they were born limp.
Interventions	Intervention: UCM After clamping and cutting the cord at 25 cm from the umbilicus, the cord was milked 3 times at 10 cm/sec N = 100 babies (3 lost to follow‐up only relevant for longer‐term outcomes) Comparator: ECC Cord clamped immediately N = 100 babies (7 lost to follow‐up (only relevant for longer term outcomes) and 3 samples haemolysed) Additional information Gestational subgroup: > 32‐34 weeks' gestation Resuscitation with cord intact: not available Access to NICU: yes Length of delay: n/a Baby placed: under radiant warmer Uterotonic: given soon all births (IM for vaginal births and IV for CS) UCM: cord cut Comparison 7 UCM vs ECC (subgroup by gestation) Subgroup 2: > 32‐34 weeks' gestation Comparison 8 UCM vs ECC (subgroup by type of intervention) Subgroup 2: cord cut before UCM
Outcomes	Primary Hb and serum ferritin at 6 weeks Secondary Jaundice needing phototherapy; respiratory distress; need for oxygen; polycythaemia Hb, packed cell volume and bilirubin) in first 48 hrs of life; Hb at 48 hrs; Hct at 48 hrs Bilirubin mg/dL in first 48 hrs At 30 mins of life; Mean BP mmHg; HR/min; Resp rate/min
Notes	Setting: Department of Pediatrics and Obstetrics of a tertiary care institute in Northern India. Dates: September 2013 to August 2014 Declaration of interest: no competing interests reported Trial funding source: no funding.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote:“…online generated random number list and assigned even numbers to early cord clamping (control) group and"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote:“The numbers were written on small slips and placed in serially numbered opaque sealed envelopes. Sealed envelope was opened by a delivery room staff nurse, just"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No information provided. Clinicians at the birth cannot be blinded but it is unclear if women were blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No information but most of outcomes are laboratory tests – though there are a few clinical outcomes – so unclear.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	UCM group lost 3/100 and ECC group lost 7/100 for clinical outcomes. So well under 20%.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	We did not assess the trial protocol
Other bias	Low risk	No indication of other biases,.