Cited by 49Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin PregnancyPreterm Birth and ChorioamnionitisMaternal and Perinatal Health Interventions

Short communications

A L Hartikainen-Sorri, P Jouppila·1984·Journal of Perinatal Medicine

Abstract

A prospective study was carried out to evaluate the significance and efficacy of routine hospital bed rest in prevention of premature birth and pregnancy complications compared to specialized antenatal care at the outpatient clinic of 73 twin pregnancies. The twin pregnancies were screened in health centers by means of symphysis-fundus measurement, and the diagnosis was confirmed by ultrasound examination at the outpatient clinic. On the average the ultrasonic diagnosis was performed during the 23rd gestational week; at this visit the women were divided into two groups with similar follow-up to the end of the 29th gestational week. At this stage one of the groups was hospitalized unless there had been indications for earlier admission. In the hospital group, the mean for gestational week at delivery was 36.7 (+/- 2.4) and in the outpatient group 37.4 (+/- 1.8) respectively (N.S.). There was no difference in the rate of pregnancy complications between the groups too. No statistical differences in the perinatal mortality (7.1% and 1.1% respectively) or birthweights of the newborns were found, either. Present results do not support the idea of using routine hospital bed rest. It could not be proved to have positive effects on the gestational age, birth weight and perinatal mortality of the newborns, nor to the pregnancy complications. In our opinion early diagnosis of twin pregnancy is of decisive importance and specialized ambulatory follow-up could be employed instead of routi…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/jpme.1984.12.1.31

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Hartikainen-Sorri 1984 was excluded because participants were allocated to intervention or control according to their year of birth.

    “We excluded the other trial because participants were allocated to the intervention or control group according to their year of birth (Hartikainen-Sorri 1984).”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 16 · Cited by 49

Authors
Hartikainen-Sorri, A. L., & Jouppila, P.
Venue
Journal of Perinatal Medicine
Published
1984-01
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
31-42
ISSN
  • 0300-5577 (ISSN-L)
  • 1619-3997
OpenAlex
W2338232910
Cited by
49
References
16
Citations by year
2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Perinatal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Preterm Birth and Chorioamnionitis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
Keywords
twin pregnancy, hospitalization, prenatal care, preterm birth, pregnancy complications, perinatal mortality, birth weight, gestational age, outpatient follow-up
MeSH terms
Ambulatory Care, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy, Multiple, Prenatal Care, Prospective Studies, Random Allocation, Twins

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review