ArticlePloS one2022
Experience in different modes of delivery in twin pregnancy.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Maternal and infant outcomes of planned mode of delivery in twin pregnancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of planned delivery mode on neonatal outcomes and costs in twin pregnancies in Kenya.AJOG global reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Multiple Pregnancy and the Risk of Postpartum Hemorrhage: Retrospective Analysis in a Tertiary Level Center of Care.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background/purposeVaginal delivery, compared with Cesarean delivery, remains a less chosen mode of delivery for twin pregnancy. We studied the maternal and perinatal outcomes of twin pregnancy with different modes of delivery.
methodsA retrospective study with data collected from a regional hospital, including vital twin pregnancies delivered at gestational age of 32 weeks and above. Medical charts were reviewed for prenatal conditions and postpartum outcomes.
resultsNinety-eight pairs of twins were included and 44.9% were delivered via vaginal delivery. Women in the vaginal delivery group were significantly younger (32.5 ±4.3 years versus 34.8 ±4.6 years, p < 0.01), multiparous (34.1% versus 18.5%) and with more twins in vertex-vertex presentation (70.5% versus 33.3%) compared with women in the Cesarean delivery group. There were no differences between maternal postpartum complications and neonatal outcomes in both groups. The outcomes showed longer inter-twin delivery time interval (5.7 ± 5.6 versus 1.5 ± 0.9 min, p < 0.01), less estimated blood loss (198.7 ± 144.1 versus 763.2 ± 332.3 mL, p < 0.01), and shorter maternal hospital stay (3.0 ± 0.5 versus 5.7 ± 0.5 days, p< 0.01) in the vaginal delivery group. Twenty newborns had Apgar score below seven at birth. Logistic regression analysis revealed that low Apgar score was independently related to younger maternal age, maternal obstetric diseases and fetal non-vertex presentation. Gestational weeks and mode of delivery were not related to low Apgar score.
conclusionWith careful case selection, vaginal delivery could be safely performed in twin pregnancies with less estimated blood loss and better recovery than Cesarean delivery.
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.