Rabe 2000.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial
Participants	Inclusion criteria Infants < 33 weeks' gestation N = 40 babies Exclusion criteria Multiple pregnancies, Rhesus incompatibility, fetal hydrops, congenital malformation, Apgar < 3 at 0 mins.
Interventions	Intervention: DCC Cord clamping at 45 secs and positioning of the infant below the level of placenta, if possible, Uterotonic (9 IU oxytocin IV) with delivery of the first shoulder N = 19 babies Comparator: ECC Cord clamping at 20 secs. N = 20 babies Additional information Gestational subgroup: < 32‐34 weeks' gestation Resuscitation with cord intact: not available Access to NICU: yes Length of delay: 45 secs Baby placed: low Uterotonic: before cord clamping UCM: n/a Comparison 1 DCC with neonatal resuscitation after cord clamping vs ECC (subgroup by gestation) Subgroup 1: < 32‐34 weeks' gestation Comparison 2 DCC with neonatal resuscitation after cord clamping vs ECC (subgroup by type intervention) Subgroup 2: DCC at < 1 min with baby low (+ gravity)
Outcomes	Primary outcome Number of blood transfusions during first 6 weeks of life Secondary outcomes Apgar score, temperature on admission, BP at 1, 4 and 24 hrs, volume resuscitation during first 24 hrs, inotropic support, degree of respiratory distress, IVH, PDA, phototherapy.
Notes	Setting: Germany Dates: 1997 to 1998 Declaration of interest: none reported Trial funding source: Children's University Hospital of Münster Further information For the outcome of death only, we re‐included the 1 baby who was excluded due to cord being clamped at 30 secs rather than 45 secs. For outcome of CLD denominator in ECC was changed from 20 to 19 as 1 baby died in this group at 3 days. H Rabe provided additional information regarding this study including information on dates, declarations of interest and funding source.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	The sequencing was computer generated. The allocation was done by a staff member not involved in clinical care or the clinical trial (personal communication).
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote:“by opening a sealed dark envelope”. The sealed dark envelopes were sequentially numbered. The clinician opening the envelope could not predict the allocation (personal communication).
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	It was not possible to blind the clinicians at the birth, and it is unclear whether women knew their allocation or not (changed from unclear to high risk).
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	There was an attempt to blind outcome assessors (group status was not recorded in notes). It was not clear whether lack of blinding affected clinical care or decisions that may have influenced outcomes.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	40 participants were randomised and 39 were included in the analysis. 1 baby in the late clamping group had cord clamping at 30 secs due to clinical concern, and was excluded from the analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Assessment of bias from published study report.
Other bias	Low risk	Other bias not apparent. Study groups appeared similar at baseline.