ReviewNigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical Association
The Second Twin: Outcomes and Lessons in a Northern Nigerian Tertiary Hospital.
Review in Nigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical Association. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Twin pregnancy is traditionally high risk, and with rising incidence, there is a need for evaluating the outcomes as a marker of the quality of care offered. There is some evidence to suggest that the second twin is at higher risk of adverse fetal outcomes, though several studies, especially in more advanced healthcare settings, have debunked this. There is a need for robust evidence on second twin outcomes in low-resource settings like ours to enable standardization and improved quality of care, which will lead to improved fetal outcomes. The objective of this study is to compare the delivery outcomes of first and second twins in terms of Apgar scores and stillbirth rates. Methodology: The records of women who presented with twin gestation to the delivery suite, from January 2016 to December 2022, were retrieved using a structured proforma. Delivery outcomes were the Apgar scores at one and five minutes, and stillbirth rates. Results: The most common presentation of the second twin was cephalic, and the mode of delivery was via CS. There was no statistically significant difference in Apgar score and stillbirth rate between the first and second twins. However, in those that had vaginal deliveries, the first- and fifth-minute Apgar scores were significantly lower in the second twin than the first twin. Conclusion: There were no significant differences in adverse fetal outcomes between the first and second twins in the general population. However, the second twin may be at higher risk of birth asphyxia in twins delivered vaginally.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42544180PMC13429071What 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.