ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Amniocentesis in Twin Pregnancies: Risk Factors of Fetal Loss.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Amniocentesis and Risk of Fetal Loss in Dichorionic-Diamniotic Twin Pregnancy: A Case-Control Study.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Observational
- Clinical Laboratory Experience With Prenatal cfDNA Screening in Triplet Pregnancies.Prenatal diagnosis · 2025Article
- Frontiers in the Etiology and Treatment of Preterm Premature Rupture of Membrane: From Molecular Mechanisms to Innovative Therapeutic Strategies.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2024Review
- Sociocultural imperatives for Singapore to permit preimplantation genetic testing-aneuploidy (PGT-A) despite uncertain results and ongoing controversy.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to determine if second trimester amniocentesis in twin pregnancies provides a significant independent contribution in the prediction of miscarriage or fetal loss at any stage of pregnancy. This was a retrospective cohort study of women with twin gestations booked for routine prenatal care in four fetal medicine units in Poland in the years 2010-2020. The study population included: (1) twin pregnancies that underwent amniocentesis at 16-20 weeks' gestation; (2) twin pregnancies that did not require any further testing and were followed-up routinely. Univariable and multivariable regression analysis was used to define which maternal and pregnancy characteristics provided a significant independent contribution in the prediction of miscarriage and fetal loss at any stage of pregnancy. In the study period, 2645 twin pregnancies were eligible for analysis. There were 144 cases of miscarriage defined as fetal loss of one or both twins before 24 weeks and 40 cases of intrauterine death of one or both twins after 24 weeks. A total number of 162 twin pregnancies underwent amniocentesis at 16-20 weeks' gestation. The rate of miscarriage before 24 weeks and the rate of fetal loss at any stage of pregnancy in the group that underwent amniocentesis was 10.49% and 13.58%, respectively, compared to 5.11% and 6.52% that did not undergo amniocentesis. Multivariable regression analysis showed that factors providing a significant independent contribution in the prediction of miscarriage and fetal loss at any stage of pregnancy were monochorionicity (MC), large intertwin discordance in crown-rump length (CRL), low Pregnancy Related Plasma Protein (PAPP-A) MoM and nuchal translucency (NT) above 95th centile. Amniocentesis in twin pregnancies does not provide a significant contribution in the prediction of miscarriage or fetal loss at any stage of pregnancy.
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.