ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Induction of Labor in Twins-Double Trouble?
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. 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.
- Twin delivery: does induction of labor make a difference?Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Trends and Outcomes of Twin Births in Southwest Nigeria: A 14-Year Retrospective Cohort Study.Exploratory research and hypothesis in medicine · 2024Article
- Trends in the use for labor analgesia in twin pregnancies: A nationwide register-based analysis in Finland.European journal of obstetrics & gynecology and reproductive biology: X · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine and compare the safety and efficacy of different methods of induction of labor in twin gestations and their effect on maternal and neonatal outcomes.
methodsA retrospective observational cohort study was conducted at a single university-affiliated medical center. Patients with a twin gestation undergoing induction of labor at >32 + 0 weeks comprised the study group. Outcomes were compared to patients with a twin gestation at >32 + 0 weeks who went into labor spontaneously. The primary outcome was cesarean delivery. Secondary outcomes included operative vaginal delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, uterine rupture, 5 min APGAR < 7, and umbilical artery pH < 7.1. A subgroup analysis comparing outcomes for the induction of labor with oral prostaglandin E1 (PGE1), IV Oxytocin ± artificial rupture of membranes (AROM), and extra-amniotic balloon (EAB)+ IV Oxytocin was performed. Data were analyzed using Fisher's exact test, ANOVA, and chi-square tests.
results268 patients who underwent induction of labor with a twin gestation comprised the study group. 450 patients with a twin gestation who went into labor spontaneously comprised the control group. There were no clinically significant differences between the groups for maternal age, gestational age, neonatal birthweight, birthweight discordancy, and non-vertex second twin. There were significantly more nulliparas in the study group compared to the control group (23.9% vs. 13.8%
conclusionsInduction of labor in twin gestations is associated with a two-fold increased risk of cesarean delivery, although this is not associated with adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes. Furthermore, the method of induction of labor used does not affect the chances of success nor the rate of adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes.
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.