Urinary stress incontinence and other maternal outcomes 2 years after caesarean or vaginal birth for twin pregnancy: a multicentre randomised trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Does planned caesarean compared with planned vaginal birth lower the risk of problematic urinary stress, faecal, or flatal incontinence? DESIGN: weeks of gestation with a twin pregnancy were randomised to planned caesarean or planned vaginal birth. SETTING: The trial took place at 106 centres in 25 countries. POPULATION: A total of 2305 of the 2804 women enrolled in the study completed questionnaires at 2 years (82.2% follow-up): 1155 in the planned caesarean group and 1150 in the planned vaginal birth group. METHODS: A structured self-administered questionnaire completed at 2 years postpartum. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary maternal outcome of the Twin Birth Study was problematic urinary stress, or fecal, or flatal incontinence at 2 years RESULTS: Women in the planned caesarean group had lower problematic urinary stress incontinence rates compared with women in the planned vaginal birth group [93/1147 (8.11%) versus 140/1143 (12.25%); odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.83; P = 0.001]. Among those with problematic urinary stress incontinence, quality of life (measured using the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire, IIQ-7) was not different for planned caesarean versus planned vaginal birth groups [mean (SD): 18.4 (21.0) versus 19.1 (21.5); P = 0.82]. There were no differences in problematic faecal or flatal incontinence, or in other maternal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with a twin pregnancy and no prior history of urinary stress incontinence, a management strategy of planned caesarean compared with planned vaginal birth reduces the risk of problematic urinary stress incontinence at 2 years postpartum. Our findings show that the prevalence but not the severity of urinary stress incontinence was associated with mode of birth. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) (grant no. MCT-63164). TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: For women with twins, planned caesarean compared with planned vaginal birth is associated with decreased prevalence but not severity of urinary stress incontinence at 2 years.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".