ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2025
Relationship between inter-pregnancy interval and risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes in subsequent twin pregnancies.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInter-pregnancy interval (IPI), defined as the time span from one delivery to the next conception, is a controllable component of postpartum family planning. Studies show IPI affects adverse outcomes in singleton pregnancies, but its impact on twin pregnancies remains unclear. Our study aimed to explore the relationship between IPI and maternal and neonatal outcomes in subsequent twin pregnancies and also identified risk factors for these outcomes.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of 583 women with twin pregnancies from 2016 to 2023. They were categorized into five groups based on IPI: <24 months, 24–35 months, 36–59 months, 60–119 months, and ≥ 120 months. Primary outcomes included preterm birth < 34 weeks, low birth weight/low birth weight, low birth weight/normal birth weight, and very low birth weight or extremely low birth weight in at least one twin. Secondary outcomes were postpartum hemorrhage and maternal hemorrhagic morbidity. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to investigate the relationship between IPI and adverse outcomes, as well as the risk factors for these outcomes.
resultsWomen with an IPI of 36–59 months had a lower risk of very low birth weight or extremely low birth weight in at least one twin (aOR = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.03–0.81) compared to those with an IPI < 24 months. No relationship was found between IPI and other birth outcomes (P > 0.05). Modifiable risk factors including maternal body mass index at delivery, gestational weight gain, assisted reproductive technology, general anesthesia and anemia, along with unmodifiable risk factors including chorionicity, preterm premature rupture of membranes, gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, cesarean delivery history, placenta previa, low-lying placenta, and placental adherence, were related to adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes (P < 0.05).
conclusionsAn IPI of 36–59 months is a protective factor against very low birth weight or extremely low birth weight in at least one twin. No significant associations are found between IPI and other birth outcomes in women with subsequent twin pregnancies. Risk factors contributing to adverse perinatal outcomes should be considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.