ArticleGeburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde2014
Twin Birth Considering the Current Results of the "Twin Birth Study"
Article in Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association between obesity in women with multiple gestations and adverse obstetric outcomes: a study of an American population database with over 136,000 unique deliveries.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- The impact of fetal sex on pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in twin gestation.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Article
- Learning Disabilities in Reading and Writing and Type of Delivery in Twin Births.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Observational
- Early neonatal mortality in twin pregnancy: Findings from 60 low- and middle-income countries.Journal of global health · 2018Article
- Delivery of the second twin: influence of presentation on neonatal outcome, a case controlled study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rate of caesarean sections in multiple births has grown sharply worldwide. The reason for this may be the results of large retrospective cohort studies from the 1990s, which displayed an increased risk of mortality and morbidity, especially for the second twin, in the case of vaginal births. Multiple monocentric analyses have not been able to confirm this. As a prospective, multi-centre randomised study, the Twin Birth Study published in 2013, in which 105 clinics in 25 countries took part, showed that, under optimum conditions, there was no difference in neonatal and maternal mortality and morbidity if the birth was planned to be vaginal or via caesarean. Detailed analyses, which would be helpful in choosing the type of birth method and obstetric management in the event of vaginal birth, have not previously been published. Retrospective studies must be referred to for this.
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.