4.2 Article

Trends in Spontaneous and Medically Indicated Preterm Birth in Twins versus Singletons: A California Cohort 2007 to 2011

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY
Volume 40, Issue 1, Pages 62-67

Publisher

THIEME MEDICAL PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1729161

Keywords

twins; preterm birth; trends; spontaneous preterm birth; medically indicated preterm birth

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to understand the reasons behind the decline in preterm birth rates between 2007 and 2011 by describing the rates, subtypes, and risk factors in twins compared with singletons. The study found that the decline in preterm birth in singletons was mainly due to a decrease in medically indicated preterm birth, while both spontaneous and indicated preterm birth declined in twins.
Objective The study aimed to describe preterm birth (PTB) rates, subtypes, and risk factors in twins compared with singletons to better understand reasons for the decline in PTB rate between 2007 and 2011. Study Design This was a retrospective population-based analysis using the California linked birth certificates and maternal-infant hospital discharge records from 2007 to 2011. The main outcomes were overall, spontaneous (following spontaneous labor or preterm premature rupture of membranes), and medically indicated PTB at various gestational age categories: <37, <32, and 34 to 36 weeks in twins and singletons. Results Among the 2,290,973 singletons and 28,937 twin live births pairs included, overall PTB <37 weeks decreased by 8.46% (6.77-6.20%) in singletons and 7.17% (55.31-51.35%) in twins during the study period. In singletons, this was primarily due to a 24.91% decrease in medically indicated PTB with almost no change in spontaneous PTB, whereas in twins indicated PTB declined 7.02% and spontaneous PTB by 7.39%. Conclusion Recent declines in PTB in singletons appear to be largely due to declines in indicated PTB, whereas both spontaneous and indicated PTB declined in twins.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available