Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33686672›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2021

Ultrasound for diagnosis of birth weight discordance in twin pregnancies.

Shayesteh Jahanfar, Jacqueline J Ho, Sharifah Halimah Jaafar, Iosief Abraha, Mohaddesseh Noura, Cassandra R Ross, Mohan Pammi

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic ReviewTwin Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Ultrasound for diagnosis of birth weight discordance in twin pregnancies.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Accuracy of sonographic fetal biometry in estimating intertwin size discordance at birth.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Article
  6. ISUOG Practice Guidelines (updated): role of ultrasound in twin pregnancy.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2025
    Article
  7. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Shayesteh JahanfarMPH Program, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Michigan, USA.
Jacqueline J HoDepartment of Paediatrics, RCSI & UCD Malaysia Campus (formerly Penang Medical College), George Town, Malaysia.
Sharifah Halimah JaafarDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Regency Specialist Hospital, Johor Bahru, Malaysia.
Iosief AbrahaServizio Immunotrasfusionale, Azienda Unita' Sanitaria Locale Umbria 2, Foligno (PG), Italy.
Mohaddesseh NouraDepartment of Midwifery/Nursing, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran.
Cassandra R RossSchool of Health Sciences, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, USA.
Mohan PammiSection of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Baylor College of Medicine · USCentral Michigan University · USGolestan University of Medical Sciences · IRRCSI & UCD Malaysia Campus · MYSultan Ismail Specialist Hospital · MYTufts University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a need to standardize monitoring in obstetric research of twin pregnancies. Identification of birth weight discordance (BWD), defined as a difference in the birth weights of twins, is a well-documented phenomenon in twin pregnancies. Ultrasound for the diagnosis of BWD informs complex decision making including whether to intervene medically (via laser photo coagulation) or deliver the twins to avoid fetal morbidities or even death. The question is, how accurate is this measurement?

objectivesTo determine the diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of ultrasound estimated fetal weight discordance (EFWD) of 20% and 25% using different estimated biometric ultrasound measurements compared with the actual BWD as the reference standard in twin pregnancies. SEARCH

methodsThe search for this review was performed on 15 March 2019. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), seven other databases, conference proceedings, reference lists and contacted experts. There were no language or date restrictions applied to the electronic searches, and no methodological filters to maximize sensitivity. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected cohort-type studies with delayed verification that evaluated the accuracy of biometric measurements at ultrasound scanning of twin pregnancies that had been proposed for the diagnosis of estimated BWD, compared to BWD measurements after birth as a reference standard. In addition, we only selected studies that considered twin pregnancies and applied a reference standard for EFWD for the target condition of BWD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We screened all titles generated by electronic database searches. Two review authors independently assessed the abstracts of all potentially relevant studies. We assessed the identified full papers for eligibility, and extracted data to create 2 × 2 tables. Two review authors independently performed quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. We excluded studies that did not report data in sufficient detail to construct 2 × 2 tables, and where this information was not available from the primary investigators. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN

resultsWe included 39 eligible studies with a median study sample size of 140. In terms of risk of bias, there were many unclear statements regarding patient selection, index test and use of proper reference standard. Twenty-one studies (53%) were of methodological concern due to flow and timing. In terms of applicability, most studies were of low concern. Ultrasound for diagnosis of BWD in twin pregnancies at 20% cut-off Twenty-two studies provided data for a BWD of 20% and the summary estimate of sensitivity was 0.51 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.60), and the summary estimate of specificity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.93) (8005 twin pregnancies; very low-certainty evidence). Ultrasound for diagnosis of BWD in twin pregnancies at 25% cut-off Eighteen studies provided data using a BWD discordance of 25%. The summary estimate of sensitivity was 0.46 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.66), and the summary estimate of specificity was 0.93 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.96) (6471 twin pregnancies; very low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analyses were possible for both BWD of 20% and 25%. The diagnostic accuracy did not differ substantially between estimation by abdominal circumference and femur length but femur length had a trend towards higher sensitivity and specificity. Subgroup analyses were not possible by sex of twins, chorionicity or gestational age due to insufficient data. AUTHORS'

conclusionsVery low-certainty evidence suggests that EFWD identified by ultrasound has low sensitivity but good specificity in detecting BWD in twin pregnancies. There is uncertain diagnostic value of EFWD; this review suggests there is insufficient evidence to support this index as the sole measure for clinical decision making to evaluate the prognosis of twins with growth discordance. The diagnostic accuracy of other measures including amniotic fluid index and umbilical artery Doppler resistive indices in combination with ultrasound for clinical intervention requires evaluation. Future well-designed studies could also evaluate the impact of chorionicity, sex and gestational age in the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for EFWD.

Indexed as

Birth WeightPregnancy, TwinBiasCohort StudiesFemaleFemurHumansPregnancyReference StandardsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonography, PrenatalWaist Circumference

Identifiers

PMID33686672
PMCPMC8078490
OpenAlexW2594834510

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.