ReviewFrontiers in pediatrics2022
Comparison of outcomes of monochorionic twin pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive technology vs. spontaneous conceptions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in pediatrics, 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.
- Maternal and neonatal outcomes of dichorionic twin pregnancies achieved with assisted reproductive technology: meta-analysis of contemporary data.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2024Pooled it
- Obstetrical and Neonatal Outcomes in Twin Pregnancies Based on Chorionicity: A Systematic Review of ART-Conceived Monochorionic vs. Dichorionic Twins.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Comparing Outcomes and Risks of Multiple Gestations: Assisted versus Spontaneous Conceptions.International journal of women's health · 2025Article
- Is There a Cumulative Effect for Congenital Heart Defects in Monochorionic Twins after Assisted Reproduction? - A Retrospective Analysis at a Tertiary Referral Center.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2024Article
- Perinatal Outcomes of Monochorionic Twin Pregnancies Conceived Naturally Versus through Assisted Reproductive Techniques.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This review aimed to assess if monochorionic twin pregnancies conceived by assisted conception have worse maternal and neonatal outcomes as compared to those conceived naturally. Methods: Datasets of PubMed, ScienceDirect, CENTRAL, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for studies comparing maternal and neonatal outcomes of monochorionic twin pregnancies conceived by assisted vs. spontaneous methods. Results: Eight studies comparing 337 assisted with 2,711 spontaneously conceived monochorionic twin pregnancies were included. Meta-analysis revealed that the mode of conception of monochorionic twin pregnancies had no impact on the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) (OR: 1.36 95% CI, 0.73, 2.54 Conclusion: Monochorionic twin pregnancies conceived
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.