ArticleClinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.)2021
Characterizing the coalescence area of conjoined twins to elucidate congenital disorders in singletons.
Article in Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developmental origin and clinical profile of siamese twins in a tertiary care setting.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- The pathological anatomical collection of the Natural History Museum Vienna.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2024Review
- Monosymmetros Cephalothoracopagus Tetrabrachius and Tetrapus Piglets with Syndromic Evolution.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Phenotypically Discordant Anomalies in Conjoined Twins: Quirks of Nature Governed by Molecular Pathways?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Brain malformations in diprosopia observed in clinical cases, museum specimens and artistic representations.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2023Article
- The role of the University of Padua medical school in the study of conjoined twins between 18th and early 19th century.American journal of medical genetics. Part A · 2022Article
- Conjoined twins and conjoined triplets: At the heart of the matter.Birth defects research · 2022Review
- Characterizing the coalescence area of conjoined twins to elucidate congenital disorders in singletons.Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) · 2021Article
- Dutch teratological collections and their artistic portrayals.American journal of medical genetics. Part C, Seminars in medical genetics · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Shared anomalies, always located close to the area of coalescence and observable in virtually every type of conjoined twinning, are currently seen as separate anomalies caused by mostly unknown and seemingly unrelated pathways rather than being connected to the twinning mechanism itself. Therefore, most (case) reports about conjoined twins are mere descriptions of (external) dysmorphologies lacking reflections on the possible origin of their concomitant anomalies. As we will demonstrate in this article, shared anomalies are influenced, and in some cases solely and sequentially explained, by interaction aplasia and neo-axial orientation; two embryological mechanisms to which each set of conjoined twins is subjected and are responsible for their ultimate phenotypical fate. In this review, we consider how the ventral, lateral and caudal conjunction types and their intermediates determine the phenotypic presentation of the twins, including patterns of shared malformations and anomalies, which in themselves can be indistinguishable from those encountered in singleton cases. Hence, it can be hypothesized that certain anomalies in singletons originate in a fashion similar to that in conjoined twins.
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.