ArticleObstetrics & gynecology science2022
Pregnancy outcomes in twin pregnancies over 10 years.
Article in Obstetrics & gynecology science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antenatal Corticosteroid in Twin-Pregnant Women at Risk of Late Preterm Delivery: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA pediatrics · 2025Trial
- Dual effects of anti-Müllerian hormone on ovarian response and fertilization in assisted reproductive technology cycles: a retrospective cohort study.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2026Article
- Short- and Long-Term Outcomes of Offspring According to Cerclage Placement in Twin Pregnancy: A National Cohort Study Over 15 Years.Yonsei medical journal · 2026Article
- Long-Term Neurodevelopmental Outcomes After Antenatal Corticosteroid Therapy in Late Preterm Twins: A Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Cell-free DNA screening in twin pregnancies.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2024Article
- Fetal growth changes and prediction of selective fetal growth restriction following fetoscopic laser coagulation in twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2023Article
- How to screen the cervix and reduce the risk of spontaneous preterm birth in asymptomatic women without a prior preterm birth.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2023Article
- Management of the smaller twin with impending compromise in twin pregnancies complicated by selective fetal growth restriction: a questionnaire-based study of clinical practice patterns.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Risk factors for postpartum hemorrhage in twin pregnancies with cesarean section.Frontiers in 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the changes in twin pregnancy outcomes between 2007 and 2016 in a Korean population.
methodsThe data for this nationwide population-based study was obtained from the national birth registry of the Korean National Statistical Office and the Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service of Korea. Women with twin pregnancies who gave birth between 2007 and 2016 were included.
resultsFrom 2007 to 2016, the rate of twin pregnancies increased (1.37% vs. 1.91%, respectively, P<0.0001). The risk of preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.66-1.89) also increased; however, the risk of twin growth discordance (aOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.99) decreased. The risks of cesarean section (aOR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.29), gestational diabetes mellitus (aOR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.83-2.39), and postpartum hemorrhage (aOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.14-1.41) all increased from 2007 to 2016.
conclusionTwin pregnancy outcomes have changed significantly in Korea over a recent 10-year period.
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.