Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy after multifetal pregnancy reduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To systematically review the literature on hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) after multifetal pregnancy reduction (MFPR). A comprehensive search in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus was performed. Prospective or retrospective studies reporting on MFPR from triplet or higher-order to twin compared to ongoing (i.e., non-reduced) triplets and/or twins were included. A meta-analysis of the primary outcome HDP was carried out using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses of gestational hypertension (GH) and preeclampsia (PE) were performed. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Thirty studies with a total of 9,811 women were included. MFPR from triplet to twin was associated with a lower risk for HDP compared to ongoing triplets (OR 0.55, 95% CI, 0.37–0.83; <i>p</i> = 0.004). In a subgroup analysis, the decreased risk of HDP was driven by GH, and PE was no longer significant (OR 0.34, 95% CI, 0.17–0.70; <i>p</i> = 0.004 and OR 0.64, 95% CI, 0.38–1.09; <i>p</i> = 0.10, respectively). HDP was also significantly lower after MFPR from all higher-order (including triplets) to twin compared to ongoing triplets (OR 0.55, 95% CI, 0.38–0.79; <i>p</i> = 0.001). In a subgroup analysis, the decreased risk of HDP was driven by PE, and GH was no longer significant (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32–0.92; <i>p</i> = 0.02 and OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.28–1.06; <i>p</i> = 0.08, respectively). No significant differences in HDP were found in MFPR from triplet or higher-order to twin versus ongoing twins. MFPR in women with triplet and higher-order multifetal pregnancies decreases the risk of HDP. Twelve women should undergo MFPR to prevent one event of HDP. These data can be used in the decision-making process of MFPR, in which the individual risk factors of HDP can be taken into account.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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 teacher head, 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".