Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35105310›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022

Assessment of different thresholds of birthweight discordance for early neonatal outcomes: retrospective analysis of 2348 twin pregnancies.

Shaoxin Ye, Dazhi Fan, Pengsheng Li, Gengdong Chen, Jiaming Rao, Huishan Zhang, Zixing Zhou, Jinping Feng, Caihong Luo, Xiaoling Guo and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Neonatal Outcomes in Twin Pregnancies with Birthweight Discordance:Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

12 authors.

Shaoxin YeFoshan Institute of Fetal Medicine, Affiliated Foshan Maternity & Child Healthcare Hospital, Southern Medical University, 11 Renminxi Road, Foshan, 528000, Guangdong, China.
Dazhi FanFoshan Institute of Fetal Medicine, Affiliated Foshan Maternity & Child Healthcare Hospital, Southern Medical University, 11 Renminxi Road, Foshan, 528000, Guangdong, China.
Pengsheng LiFoshan Institute of Fetal Medicine, Affiliated Foshan Maternity & Child Healthcare Hospital, Southern Medical University, 11 Renminxi Road, Foshan, 528000, Guangdong, China.
Gengdong ChenFoshan Institute of Fetal Medicine, Affiliated Foshan Maternity & Child Healthcare Hospital, Southern Medical University, 11 Renminxi Road, Foshan, 528000, Guangdong, China.
Jiaming RaoFoshan Institute of Fetal Medicine, Affiliated Foshan Maternity & Child Healthcare Hospital, Southern Medical University, 11 Renminxi Road, Foshan, 528000, Guangdong, China.
Huishan ZhangFoshan Institute of Fetal Medicine, Affiliated Foshan Maternity & Child Healthcare Hospital, Southern Medical University, 11 Renminxi Road, Foshan, 528000, Guangdong, China.
Zixing ZhouFoshan Institute of Fetal Medicine, Affiliated Foshan Maternity & Child Healthcare Hospital, Southern Medical University, 11 Renminxi Road, Foshan, 528000, Guangdong, China.
Jinping FengDepartment of Obstetrics, Affiliated Foshan Maternity & Child Healthcare Hospital, Southern Medical University, Foshan, 528000, Guangdong, China.
Caihong LuoDepartment of Obstetrics, Affiliated Foshan Maternity & Child Healthcare Hospital, Southern Medical University, Foshan, 528000, Guangdong, China.
Xiaoling GuoFoshan Institute of Fetal Medicine, Affiliated Foshan Maternity & Child Healthcare Hospital, Southern Medical University, 11 Renminxi Road, Foshan, 528000, Guangdong, China.
Zhengping LiuFoshan Institute of Fetal Medicine, Affiliated Foshan Maternity & Child Healthcare Hospital, Southern Medical University, 11 Renminxi Road, Foshan, 528000, Guangdong, China. liuzphlk81@outlook.com.
Dongxin LinFoshan Institute of Fetal Medicine, Affiliated Foshan Maternity & Child Healthcare Hospital, Southern Medical University, 11 Renminxi Road, Foshan, 528000, Guangdong, China. lindongxin21@outlook.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe optimal threshold of birthweight discordance (BWD) remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the associations between BWD at different thresholds and early neonatal outcomes and to assess their predictive accuracy.

methodsThis was a retrospective cohort study using a birthweight data with the chorionicity information of 2348 liveborn twin pairs at a gestational age of ≥26 weeks, from 2012 to 2018. The percentage of BWD was calculated by dividing the actual birthweight difference by the weight of the larger twin and multiplying by 100. Outcomes of interest included neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, neonatal respiratory distress syndrome (NRDS), ventilator support and a composite outcome combining major morbidities and neonatal death. Logistic regression models were performed to estimate the association between neonatal outcomes and BWD with different thresholds (≥15.0%, ≥20.0%, ≥25% and ≥ 30%). Generalized estimated equation (GEE) models were used to address intertwin correlation. Restrictive cubic spline (RCS) models were established to draw the dose-response relationship between BWD and the odds ratios of outcomes. Clustered receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed to assess the predictive accuracy.

resultsOf 2348 twin pairs, including 1946 dichorionic twin pairs and 402 monochorionic twin pairs, BWD was significantly associated with NICU admission, regardless of the thresholds used. The incidence of NRDS, ventilator support and the composite outcome were significantly higher when a threshold of ≥20% or greater was chosen. The dose-response relationship showed nonlinear growth in the risk of adverse neonatal outcomes with increasing BWD. ROC analyses showed a low significant AUROC of 0.569 (95% CI: 0.526-0.612) for predicting NICU admission but no significant AUROCs for predicting other outcomes. A BWD of ≥30% provided a moderate increase in the likelihood of NICU admission [positive likelihood ratio (LR

conclusionAlthough BWD is independently associated with adverse neonatal outcomes, it is not a single predictor for neonatal outcomes given the weak discriminative ability to predict neonatal outcomes. A cutoff of 30% is more practical for risk stratification among twin gestations.

Indexed as

Birth WeightPregnancy, TwinFemaleHumansInfantInfant, NewbornIntensive Care Units, NeonatalMorbidityOdds RatioPerinatal DeathPregnancyReference StandardsRespiration, ArtificialRespiratory Distress Syndrome, NewbornRetrospective StudiesBirthweight discordanceDose-response relationshipNeonatal outcomePredictive accuracyTwin pregnancies

Identifiers

PMID35105310
PMCPMC8808974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.