MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309654048 · doi:10.1002/uog.26126

Pregnancy and perinatal outcomes of early <i>vs</i> late selective termination in dichorionic twin pregnancy: systematic review and meta‐analysis

2022· review· en· W4309654048 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sara Sorrenti, Daniele Di Mascio, Asma Khalil, Nicola Persico, Fabrizio Zullo, Valentina D’Ambrosio, Gahl Greenberg, Joseph Hasson, Flaminia Vena, Ludovico Muzii, Roberto Brunelli, Antonella Giancotti

Bibliographic record

VenueUltrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObstetricsPregnancyTwin PregnancyOdds ratioGestational ageGestationBirth weightMeta-analysisProspective cohort studyCohort studyApgar scoreGynecologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes of dichorionic twin pregnancies undergoing early vs late selective termination of pregnancy (ST). METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Web of Science databases were searched electronically up to March 2022. The primary outcome of this study was pregnancy loss prior to 24 weeks' gestation. The secondary outcomes included preterm birth (PTB) before 37, 34, and 32 weeks, preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM), gestational age (GA) at delivery, Cesarean delivery, mean birth weight, 5-min Apgar score < 7, overall neonatal morbidity and neonatal survival. Only prospective or retrospective studies reporting data on the outcome of early (before 18 weeks) vs late (at or after 18 weeks) ST in dichorionic twin pregnancies were considered suitable for inclusion. Quality assessment of the included studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies. Random-effects head-to-head meta-analysis was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Seven studies reporting on 649 dichorionic twin pregnancies were included in this systematic review. The risk of pregnancy loss prior to 24 weeks was significantly lower in dichorionic twin pregnancies undergoing early compared with late ST (1% vs 8%; odds ratio (OR), 0.25 (95% CI, 0.10-0.65); P = 0.004). The risk of PTB was significantly lower in dichorionic twin pregnancies undergoing early compared with late ST when considering PTB before 37 weeks (19% vs 45%; OR, 0.36 (95% CI, 0.23-0.57); P < 0.00001), before 34 weeks (4% vs 19%; OR, 0.24 (95% CI, 0.11-0.54); P = 0.0005) and before 32 weeks (4% vs 20%; OR, 0.21 (95% CI, 0.05-0.85); P = 0.03). The mean birth weight was significantly greater in the early-ST group (mean difference (MD), 392.2 g (95% CI, 59.1-726.7 g); P = 0.02), as was the mean GA at delivery (MD, 2.47 weeks (95% CI, 0.04-4.91 weeks); P = 0.049). There was no significant difference between dichorionic twin pregnancies undergoing early compared with late ST in terms of PPROM (P = 0.27), Cesarean delivery (P = 0.38), 5-min Apgar score < 7 (P = 0.35) and neonatal survival of the non-reduced twin (P = 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of pregnancy loss prior to 24 weeks and the rate of PTB before 37, 34 and 32 weeks were significantly higher in dichorionic twin pregnancies undergoing late vs early ST, thus highlighting the importance of early diagnosis of fetal anomalies in twin pregnancies. © 2022 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

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 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)0.021
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUltrasound in Obstetrics and GynecologySame topicAssisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyFrench-language works237,207