ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2022
Mode of birth in monochorionic versus dichorionic twin pregnancies: a retrospective study from a large tertiary centre in Germany.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors for successful vaginal delivery in twin pregnancies: a ten-year single-center retrospective study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- The Impact of Conception Method, Chorionicity, Amnionicity, Fetal Growth Types, and Birth Order on the Postnatal Status of Twins Born Vaginally and by Cesarean Section: A Retrospective Analysis of Data from a University Centre of Obstetrics and Gynecology (1990-2017).Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Factors influencing sex ratio at birth in Krosno, Poland.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOptimal mode of birth for twins, in particular monochorionic twins, has been the subject of much debate. This retrospective study compared maternal and newborn outcomes after vaginal birth in monochorionic and dichorionic twins, utilizing a large institutional database.
methodsRetrospective analysis focusing on 98 monochorionic-diamniotic (MC-DA) and 540 dichorionic-diamniotic (DC-DA) twin births extracted from the perinatal database of a large German hospital. Pregnancies ≥36 weeks of gestation with two viable foetuses born between 2004 and 2014 divided into planned vaginal and planned caesarean delivery were included. Descriptive analysis was performed for maternal characteristics. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidences intervals (CI) tested the predictive effect of vaginal birth on neonatal and maternal outcomes.
results51.0% MC-DA and 46.7% DC-DA twin pregnancies were planned vaginal births and 44.0% MC-DA mothers and 43.7% DC-DA mothers actually gave birth vaginally. The overall rate of caesarean section (CS) during the years under observation was 79.6% for MC-DA and 77.0% for DC-DA pregnancies. There were no significant differences in neonatal outcome between the subsamples, although acidosis was observed more often in the second DC-DA twin and Apgar scores < 7 were observed more often in MC-DA twins.
conclusionVaginal birth may be recommended as an option to women with monochorionic twins as no significant differences in outcomes were found between MC-DA and DC-DA twins. However, over half of planned vaginal twin births resulted in CS.
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.