ArticleInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics2025
Trial of labor when twin B is slightly larger than twin A: A Danish prospective cohort study.
Article in International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trial of labor when twin B is slightly larger than twin A: A Danish prospective cohort study.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess whether a trial of labor at term in twin pregnancies, where twin B is at least 250 g heavier than twin A, is associated with increased risk of emergency cesarean section or mixed-mode birth (vaginal delivery of twin A followed by cesarean of twin B). Existing guidelines on this topic are based on heterogeneous cohorts that combine planned cesarean, emergency cesarean, and mixed-mode births, limiting direct conclusions on trial of labor outcomes.
methodsIn this prospective cohort study, we included twin pregnancies referred to a Danish tertiary center from 2007 to 2019. Only those with gestational age ≥ 37 + 0 weeks and birth weight discordance <25% were eligible. Among 302 women undergoing trial of labor, 59 had a weight discordance ≥250 g with twin B as the larger fetus ("twin B larger"), while 243 formed the control group ("twins equal" or "twin A larger"). Primary outcomes were emergency cesarean section and mixed-mode birth. Secondary outcomes included blood loss ≥1000 mL, Apgar score <7 at 5 min, umbilical artery pH <7.1, and neonatal length of stay.
resultsThe rate of emergency cesarean section was higher in the "twin B larger" group (29%) compared with controls (19%, P = 0.09). Mixed-mode birth occurred in 8.5% of the "twin B larger" group and 11.5% of controls (risk difference, -3.0% [95% CI, -11.2% to 5.1%]). No significant differences were observed in secondary neonatal outcomes between groups.
conclusionIn twin pregnancies at term where twin B is slightly heavier than twin A, a trial of labor is not associated with a clinically meaningful increase in the risk of mixed-mode birth. While the emergency cesarean section rate was numerically higher, this did not reach statistical significance and should not in itself contraindicate vaginal delivery. Further research with larger sample sizes is warranted to confirm these findings.
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.