Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22161406›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2011

Planned caesarean section for women with a twin pregnancy.

G Justus Hofmeyr, Jon F Barrett, Caroline A Crowther

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Planned caesarean section for women with a twin pregnancy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Impact of legal regulation on elective cesarean sections in a secondary complexity maternity hospital in São Paulo state.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

G Justus HofmeyrDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, East London Hospital Complex, University of the Witwatersrand, University of Fort Hare, Eastern Cape Department of Health, Frere and Cecilia Makiwane Hospitals, Private Bag X 9047, East London, Eastern Cape, South Africa, 5200.
Jon F Barrett
Caroline A Crowther

Funding

Department of Health 10/4001/02Department of Health SRP/10/4001/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTwin pregnancies are associated with increased perinatal mortality, mainly related to prematurity, but complications during birth may contribute to perinatal loss or morbidity. The option of planned caesarean section to avoid such complications must therefore be considered. On the other hand, randomised trials of other clinical interventions in the birth process to avoid problems related to labour and birth (planned caesarean section for breech, and continuous electronic fetal heart rate monitoring), have shown an unexpected discordance between short-term perinatal morbidity and long-term neurological outcome. The risks of caesarean section for the mother in the current and subsequent pregnancies must also be taken into account.

objectivesTo determine the short- and long-term effects on mothers and their babies, of planned caesarean section for twin pregnancy. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing a policy of caesarean section with planned vaginal birth for women with twin pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two researchers independently assessed eligibility, quality and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN

resultsOne small trial with unconfirmed allocation concealment compared caesarean section with planned vaginal birth in 60 women with vertex/non-vertex twin pregnancies. There were no differences in perinatal outcome. The trial was too small to exclude the possibility of clinically meaningful benefits of either approach. There is one additional trial currently ongoing. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is a lack of robust evidence to guide clinical advice regarding the method of birth for twin pregnancies. Women should be informed of possible benefits and risks of either approach, including short-term and long-term consequences for both mother and babies. Future research should aim to provide unbiased evidence, including long-term outcomes.

Indexed as

Pregnancy OutcomePregnancy, TwinCesarean SectionFemaleHumansPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID22161406
PMCPMC4110647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.