SynthesisJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2024
Maternal and neonatal outcomes of dichorionic twin pregnancies achieved with assisted reproductive technology: meta-analysis of contemporary data.
Synthesis in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical outcomes of dichorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies following single versus double embryo transfer in human medically assisted reproduction.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Twin pregnancy: adolescents versus adults.Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAssisted reproductive technology (ART) is commonly used to achieve pregnancy and often results in dichorionic diamniotic (DCDA) twin pregnancies. However, the potential risks of ART on maternal and neonatal outcomes in these pregnancies are not well understood. The objective is to compare the maternal and neonatal outcomes in DCDA twin pregnancies between those achieved through ART and those spontaneously conceived (SC).
methodsWe carried out a systematic comprehensive search of electronic databases; namely, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library, from inception to March 2023 with a study period of recruitment between 2003 and 2023. We included all studies comparing the maternal and neonatal outcomes of DCDA twin pregnancies between those achieved by ART and those SC.
resultsWe analyzed data from 18 cohort studies involving 10,485 women with DCDA twin pregnancies. The meta-analysis showed that ART-conceived pregnancies had a significantly higher risk of preeclampsia or gestational hypertension (GH), gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), placenta previa (PP), placental abruption (PA), postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), and elective and emergency cesarean sections than SC twin pregnancies. The absolute risks of these complications remained relatively low. We also found a slightly higher risk of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) and congenital malformations in ART-conceived infants compared to the risks in SC infants. Finally, the risk of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions was significantly higher in ART-conceived infants than in SC infants, but with high heterogeneity.
conclusionWe found associations between DCDA twin pregnancies conceived through ART and increased frequencies of adverse maternal outcomes. However, the absolute risks of these complications remained low, and the benefits of ART for achieving successful pregnancies may well outweigh the potential risks. Additionally, ART-conceived DCDA twin pregnancies may pose higher risks of RDS, congenital malformations and NICU, admissions than SC DCDA twin pregnancies.
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.