MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2514115317 · doi:10.1136/bmj.i4353

Prospective risk of stillbirth and neonatal complications in twin pregnancies: systematic review and meta-analysis

2016· review· en· W2514115317 on OpenAlexaff
Fiona Cheong-See, Ewoud Schuit, David Arroyo-Manzano, Asma Khalil, Jon Barrett, K.S. Joseph, Elizabeth Asztalos, Karien E. A. Hack, Liesbeth Lewi, Arianne Lim, Sophie Liem, Jane E. Norman, John C. Morrison, C. Andrew Combs, Thomas J. Garite, Kimberly Maurel, Vicente Serra, Alfredo Perales, Line Rode, Katharina Worda, Anwar H. Nassar, Mona Aboulghar, Dwight J. Rouse, Elizabeth Thom, Fionnuala Breathnach, Soichiro Nakayama, Francesca Maria Russo, Julian N. Robinson, Jodie M Dodd, Roger Newman, Sohinee Bhattacharya, Selphee Tang, Ben W. Mol, Javier Zamora, B. Thilaganathan, Shakila Thangaratinam

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreAlberta Health ServicesHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaSunnybrook Hospital
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsGestational ageGestationConfidence intervalMeta-analysisPregnancyProspective cohort studyRelative riskObservational studyMonochorionic twinsGynecologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the risks of stillbirth and neonatal complications by gestational age in uncomplicated monochorionic and dichorionic twin pregnancies. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases (until December 2015). REVIEW METHODS: Databases were searched without language restrictions for studies of women with uncomplicated twin pregnancies that reported rates of stillbirth and neonatal outcomes at various gestational ages. Pregnancies with unclear chorionicity, monoamnionicity, and twin to twin transfusion syndrome were excluded. Meta-analyses of observational studies and cohorts nested within randomised studies were undertaken. Prospective risk of stillbirth was computed for each study at a given week of gestation and compared with the risk of neonatal death among deliveries in the same week. Gestational age specific differences in risk were estimated for stillbirths and neonatal deaths in monochorionic and dichorionic twin pregnancies after 34 weeks' gestation. RESULTS: 32 studies (29 685 dichorionic, 5486 monochorionic pregnancies) were included. In dichorionic twin pregnancies beyond 34 weeks (15 studies, 17 830 pregnancies), the prospective weekly risk of stillbirths from expectant management and the risk of neonatal death from delivery were balanced at 37 weeks' gestation (risk difference 1.2/1000, 95% confidence interval -1.3 to 3.6; I(2)=0%). Delay in delivery by a week (to 38 weeks) led to an additional 8.8 perinatal deaths per 1000 pregnancies (95% confidence interval 3.6 to 14.0/1000; I(2)=0%) compared with the previous week. In monochorionic pregnancies beyond 34 weeks (13 studies, 2149 pregnancies), there was a trend towards an increase in stillbirths compared with neonatal deaths after 36 weeks, with an additional 2.5 per 1000 perinatal deaths, which was not significant (-12.4 to 17.4/1000; I(2)=0%). The rates of neonatal morbidity showed a consistent reduction with increasing gestational age in monochorionic and dichorionic pregnancies, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit was the commonest neonatal complication. The actual risk of stillbirth near term might be higher than reported estimates because of the policy of planned delivery in twin pregnancies. CONCLUSIONS: To minimise perinatal deaths, in uncomplicated dichorionic twin pregnancies delivery should be considered at 37 weeks' gestation; in monochorionic pregnancies delivery should be considered at 36 weeks. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014007538.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.040
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations287
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207