ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Maintenance tocolysis in twin pregnancies after preterm premature rupture of membranes and neonatal outcomes: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundEvidence on maintenance tocolysis after preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) in twin pregnancies is limited. This study evaluated the association between maintenance tocolysis and pregnancy prolongation and neonatal outcomes in this high-risk population.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included twin pregnancies with PPROM between 24 and 34 weeks at Tongji Hospital from January 2012 to December 2022, comparing maintenance tocolysis with non-maintenance tocolysis (no tocolysis or short-term tocolysis). Primary outcomes were latency and gestational age (GA) at delivery. Secondary outcomes included perinatal mortality and morbidity. Multivariate regression was fitted, and generalized estimating equations (GEE) analyses were applied to account for within-twin clustering.
resultsIn the main cohort, pregnancies receiving maintenance tocolysis had longer median latency (10.44 vs. 0.61 days; p < 0.001) despite earlier GA at PPROM. In the sub-cohort (delivery > 48 h), maintenance tocolysis remained associated with longer latency (adjusted β 5.21 days, 95% CI 1.64 − 8.79, p = 0.004) and higher GA at delivery (adjusted β 0.74 weeks, 95% CI 0.23 − 1.25, p = 0.004). Benefits varied by GA at rupture: early PPROM showed lower odds of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA: aOR 0.24, 95% CI 0.07 − 0.81, p = 0.021); late PPROM showed lower risk of hyperbilirubinemia (aOR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 − 0.98, p = 0.047). In subgroup analyses, long-term tocolysis was superior to short-term therapy in extending pregnancy and reducing NICU admissions (aRR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 − 0.99, p = 0.019) and PDA risk (aOR 0.20, 95% CI 0.06 − 0.70, p = 0.012). No significant increase in clinical chorioamnionitis (6.06% vs. 2.02%, p = 0.110) or neonatal infection was observed. However, these benefits were consistently accompanied by an elevated risk of neonatal hypoglycemia (aOR 3.75, 95% CI 1.09 − 12.95, p = 0.037) and fetal growth restriction in late PPROM (birthweight percentile: adjusted β -17.04%, 95% CI -30.27−-3.82, p = 0.012).
conclusionsIn twin pregnancies with PPROM and the absence of contraindications (chorioamnionitis, placental abruption, or non‑reassuring fetal status), maintenance tocolysis effectively prolongs gestation and provides neonatal benefits that vary by rupture timing without a significant increase in infectious morbidity. These benefits must be weighed against the risks of neonatal hypoglycemia and fetal growth disturbances, underscoring a complex risk-benefit analysis for clinical decision-making.
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.