↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Planned early delivery versus expectant management for monoamniotic twins

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
Title
Planned early delivery versus expectant management for monoamniotic twins
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008820.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexis Shub, Susan P Walker

Abstract

Monoamniotic twin pregnancies are formed when a single egg is fertilised and the resulting inner cell mass splits to form twins sharing the same amniotic sac. This condition is rare and affects about one in 10,000 pregnancies overall. Monoamniotic twin pregnancies are susceptible to complications including cord entanglement, increased congenital anomalies, intrauterine growth restriction, twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome and increased perinatal mortality. All twin pregnancies also carry additional maternal risks including pre-eclampsia, anaemia, antepartum haemorrhage, postpartum haemorrhage and operative delivery.The optimal timing for the delivery of monoamniotic twins is not known. The options include 'planned early delivery' between 32 and 34 weeks, or alternatively awaiting spontaneous labour at least up until the usual time of planned delivery for other monochorionic twins (approximately 36 to 38 weeks' gestation), unless there is a specific indication for earlier delivery. To assess whether routine early delivery in monoamniotic twin pregnancies improves fetal, neonatal or maternal outcomes compared with 'expectant management'. Expectant management means awaiting spontaneous labour at least up until the usual time of planned delivery for other monochorionic twins (approximately 36 to 38 weeks' gestation in many centres), unless a specific indication for delivery occurs in the meantime, e.g. for non-reassuring antenatal testing. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2015). Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (including cluster-randomised trials) comparing outcomes for women and infants who were randomised to planned early delivery of a monoamniotic twin pregnancy with outcomes for women and infants who were randomised to either planned term delivery or expectant management. However, we did not identify any trials for inclusion in this review.Quasi-randomised controlled trials, trials published in abstract form only, and trials using a cross-over design are not eligible for inclusion in this review. No trials were identified by the search strategy. No trials were identified by the search strategy. Monoamniotic twins are rare, and there is insufficient randomised controlled evidence on which to draw strong conclusions about the best management. In their absence, we can refer to historical case series and expert consensus. Management plans should take into consideration the availability of high-quality neonatal care if early delivery is chosen. Women and their families should be involved in the decision making about these high-risk pregnancies.Ongoing, multicentre audits of maternal and perinatal outcomes for monoamniotic twins are needed in order to inform families and clinicians about up-to-date perinatal outcomes with contemporary obstetric practice. Research should consider the social and economic implications of planned interventions, as well as the perinatal outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 139 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 19%
Student > Bachelor 24 17%
Researcher 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Other 9 6%
Other 28 20%
Unknown 27 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 15%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Psychology 8 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 33 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 January 2020.
All research outputs
#2,620,942
of 16,540,864 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,316
of 11,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,610
of 233,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#130
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,540,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 233,028 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.