MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045205907 · doi:10.1097/ogx.0000000000000803

Management of Twin Pregnancies: A Comparative Review of National and International Guidelines

2020· review· en· W3045205907 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance Twin pregnancies are associated with a higher risk of perinatal mortality and morbidity compared with singleton and require more intensive prenatal care. Objective The aim of this study was to review and compare the recommendations from published guidelines on twin pregnancies. Evidence Acquisition A descriptive review of guidelines from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on the management of twin pregnancies was conducted. Results All the guidelines highlight the importance of an accurate assessment of chorionicity, amnionicity, and gestational age in the first trimester. They also recommend the performance of nuchal translucency and a detailed anomaly scan. The ultrasound surveillance protocol is similar in all guidelines, that is, every 2 weeks for monochorionic and every 4 weeks for dichorionic twins. On the other hand, there are differences regarding the timing and mode of delivery, especially in monochorionic diamniotic twins, in the definition and management of fetal growth discordance, the use of cervical length to screen for preterm birth, and the timing of corticosteroids' administration. Conclusions The differences in the reviewed guidelines on the management of twin pregnancies highlight the need for an adoption of an international consensus, in order to improve perinatal outcomes of twin pregnancies. Target Audience Obstetricians and gynecologists, family physicians Learning Objectives After participating in this activity, the learner should be better able to identify all aspects of the antenatal surveillance of twin pregnancies and the importance of first trimester determination of chorionicity; explain the birth issues of twin pregnancies, including recommendations on mode and timing of delivery; and describe the possible complications in pregnancy, their association with chorionicity, and appropriate management.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.327
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.136 · 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