SynthesisPrenatal diagnosis2012
Amniocentesis in twin pregnancies: a systematic review of the literature.
Synthesis in Prenatal diagnosis, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Amniocentesis and Risk of Fetal Loss in Dichorionic-Diamniotic Twin Pregnancy: A Case-Control Study.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Observational
- Cell-free DNA screening in twin pregnancies.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2024Article
- Indications of Amniocentesis and its Early and Late Complications.Advanced biomedical research · 2024Article
- The risk factors of procedure-related complications after amniocentesis in twin pregnancies: a retrospective analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Molecular Characterization of a Rare Case of Monozygotic Dichorionic Diamniotic Twin Pregnancy after Single Blastocyst Transfer in Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGT).International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Amniocentesis in Twin Pregnancies: Risk Factors of Fetal Loss.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Non-invasive prenatal testing in the management of twin pregnancies.Prenatal diagnosis · 2021Review
- Single or double needle insertion in twin's amniocentesis: Does the technique influence the risk of complications?European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 2019Article
- Ultrasound surveillance in twin pregnancy: An update for practitioners.Ultrasound (Leeds, England) · 2018Review
- Prevalence and risk of Down syndrome in monozygotic and dizygotic multiple pregnancies in Europe: implications for prenatal screening.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveUsing published data, we sought to determine the amniocentesis-related loss rate in twin gestations.
methodsWe searched the PUBMED database using keywords "amniocentesis", "twin" and "twins" to identify articles evaluating genetic amniocentesis in twin gestations published from January 1970 to December 2010. Random effects models were used to pool procedure-related loss rates from included studies.
resultsThe definition of "loss" varied across the 17 studies identified (Table 1). The pooled procedure-related loss rate at < 24 weeks was 3.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6-4.7) (Figure 2). Pooled loss rates at < 28 weeks (Figure 4) and to term (Figure 5) could not be calculated due to unacceptable heterogeneity of available data. Seven studies included a control (no amniocentesis) group and reported a pooled odds ratio for total pregnancy loss among cases of 1.8 (95% CI 1.2-2.7) (Figure 3). Only 1 study reported procedure-related loss rates by chorionicity (7.7% among monochorionics vs 1.4% among controls; p 0.02).
conclusionAnalysis of published data demonstrated a pooled amniocentesis-related loss rate of 3.5% in twin gestations < 24 weeks. Pooled loss rates within other post-amniocentesis intervals or other gestational age windows and the impact of chorionicity on procedure-related loss rates cannot be determined from published data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.