Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Apr 18;19(4):e0301222. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301222

Comparison of perinatal outcome and mode of birth of twin and singleton pregnancies in migrant and refugee populations on the Thai Myanmar border: A population cohort

Taco J Prins 1,2,3,*, Aung Myat Min 4, Mary E Gilder 4, Nay Win Tun 4, Janneke Schepens 4, Kathryn McGregor 4, Verena I Carrara 4,5, Jacher Wiladphaingern 4, Mu Koh Paw 4, Eh Moo 4, Julie A Simpson 6, Chaisiri Angkurawaranon 1,2, Marcus J Rijken 4,7, Michele van Vugt 4,3, François Nosten 4,8, Rose McGready 4,8
Editor: Ahmed Mohamed Maged9
PMCID: PMC11025774  PMID: 38635671

Abstract

Background

In low- and middle-income countries twin births have a high risk of complications partly due to barriers to accessing hospital care. This study compares pregnancy outcomes, maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality of twin to singleton pregnancy in refugee and migrant clinics on the Thai Myanmar border.

Methods

A retrospective review of medical records of all singleton and twin pregnancies delivered or followed at antenatal clinics of the Shoklo Malaria Research Unit from 1986 to 2020, with a known outcome and estimated gestational age. Logistic regression was done to compare the odds of maternal and neonatal outcomes between twin and singleton pregnancies.

Results

Between 1986 and 2020 this unstable and migratory population had a recorded outcome of pregnancy of 28 weeks or more for 597 twin births and 59,005 singleton births. Twinning rate was low and stable (<9 per 1,000) over 30 years. Three-quarters (446/597) of the twin pregnancies and 96% (56,626/59,005) of singletons birthed vaginally. During pregnancy, a significantly higher proportion of twin pregnancies compared to singleton had pre-eclampsia (7.0% versus 1.7%), gestational hypertension (9.9% versus 3.9%) and eclampsia (1.0% versus 0.2%). The stillbirth rate of twin 1 and twin 2 was higher compared to singletons: twin 1 25 per 1,000 (15/595), twin 2 64 per 1,000 (38/595) and singletons 12 per 1,000 (680/58,781). The estimated odds ratio (95% confidence interval (CI)) for stillbirth of twin 1 and twin 2 compared to singletons was 2.2 (95% CI 1.3–3.6) and 5.8 (95% CI 4.1–8.1); and maternal death 2.0 (0.95–11.4), respectively, As expected most perinatal deaths were 28 to <32 week gestation.

Conclusion

In this fragile setting where access to hospital care is difficult, three in four twins birthed vaginally. Twin pregnancies have a higher maternal morbidity and perinatal mortality, especially the second twin, compared to singleton pregnancies.

Introduction

The worldwide twinning rate has increased from 9.1 per 1,000 births in 1980–1985 to 12.0 in 2010–2015 [1]. Contributions to this rise include older maternal age and assisted reproduction, the latter of which is not available in marginalized settings [1, 2].

Compared to singleton pregnancies, twin pregnancies have a higher risk of poor outcomes, such as postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) and preterm birth, as well as obstetrical and post-partum complications [35]. Generally the second twin has a higher risk of morbidity and mortality because of obstetric complications that may occur after birth of the first twin, including placental separation, cord prolapse, uterine atony [68]. Different approaches are proposed for the mode of birth for twin pregnancies and studies report contradictory results on the risk of perinatal and neonatal mortality for the second twin when birthed vaginally or through a planned caesarean delivery at term or preterm [913]. The general obstetric consensus is that vaginal birth is safe when the first twin is in cephalic position [2, 12, 14, 15].

In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) access to care, during pregnancy and at birth, is a significant barrier for women carrying multiple or singleton births, compared to high income countries. Access to care during this part of the life course are elevated in multiples compared to singletons, due to the higher risk of complications: mortality and morbidity [4, 5]. As the background health of women in LMIC (e.g. anaemic at the time of labor) and as maternal and neonatal mortality following caesarean delivery is disproportionally high in LMICs, the woman’s choice of the mode of birth is important [1618]. For women in migrant populations the choice is frequently limited due to barriers relating to language, culture, cost, documentation, and lack of health insurance [19, 20]. A caesarean delivery has a higher risk for complications if there are subsequent pregnancies and births; with the risk exacerbated in countries with unstable health care systems due to conflict [21]. Communities in the Thai-Myanmar border area have been conflict-affected for decades, which has significantly impacted health care service provision and outcomes. Information about management and outcomes of multiple pregnancy in marginalized populations such as this is a significant gap in the evidence-base for recommendations in multiple pregnancy [22].

The objective of this study was to assess maternal and neonatal complications and pregnancy outcomes of twin pregnancy and mode of birth in a refugee and migrant setting on the Thai Myanmar border and compare their outcomes to singleton pregnancies within the same period.

Methods

Ethical approval

Ethical approval for retrospective analysis of hospital records at the Shoklo Malaria Research Unit was provided by the Oxford University Ethics Committee (OXTREC: 28–09), by Chiang Mai University (FAM-2566-0162) and the local community advisory board in Mae-Sot, Thailand (TCAB-4/1/2015).

Study design

A retrospective review of medical records of all singleton and twin pregnancies delivered or who followed antenatal care (ANC) at Shoklo Malaria Research Unit (SMRU), during the period from 1986 to 2020 was performed. The STROBE guideline for observational studies was followed for reporting [23]. The clinical details were extracted from medical records which were initially paper based and became electronic in late 2008. Paper-based records prior to 2008 were extracted manually to an electronic database so that ANC and birth outcome data could be retrieved electronically. Information from records such as the paper-based partogram or the hospital referral forms was retrieved from archives stored at SMRU when required for clarification. Data extraction was completed in August 2022. All identifiable information of the women was removed or anonymised.

Setting and background

On the Thai-Myanmar border, Tak Province, the SMRU has established a system of antenatal clinics initially in refugee camps commencing in 1986 (ceasing in 2016) and for migrants commencing in 1998. Marginalized populations of Burmese and Karen, and less frequently other ethnic groups, are served by the SMRU clinics. Initially these clinics were established to provide active detection and early treatment of malaria, which was the leading cause of death in the 1980s [24]. The impact of geography on access to ANC and pregnancy outcomes, including twin pregnancies, in the rural, remote and politically complex Thai-Myanmar border region has been detailed previously [25]. From 1986–2000, gestational age was estimated from fundal height at first ANC or neonatal exam (Dubowitz) after birth. Since late 2001, ultrasound for gestational age estimation became available in the clinics [26]. The SMRU trains local midwifes with its own curriculum of 15 months and provides short emergency obstetric care (EmOC) courses such as Advanced Life Support in Obstetrics (ALSO) [27]. The ALSO course includes training in labour dystocia, shoulder dystocia, (pre) eclampsia, breech and malpresentation, umbilical cord prolapse, preterm labour, ante and postpartum haemorrhage, first-trimester bleeding, maternal and neonatal resuscitation, severe malaria and sepsis [27].

Women are encouraged to deliver with trained midwives in the SMRU delivery units, instead of giving birth at home with a traditional birth attendant (TBA). WHO partographs to monitor labour were introduced in 1994 and included recording of fetal distress, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, tachysystole (excessive uterine activity), uterine rupture, abnormal maternal blood pressure during labour, mode of birth, Apgar score, neonatal resuscitation and postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) [27, 28]. Complicated births requiring caesarean delivery are referred to a local Thai hospital (15 minute to one hour drive, depending on the location of the clinic) with a 24 hour standby car ready to support these cases. When a multiple gestation was diagnosed, ultrasound scans were offered more frequently, every 2 weeks from 28 weeks for fetal growth and at 34 and 36 weeks for position and sizes of the fetus, if the woman was able to access the clinic. The estimated date of delivery of twins was calculated from the earliest scan using the largest measured fetus. The general rule and advice for childbirth with twin pregnancy has been to attempt vaginal birth if there were no complications, the first fetus was cephalic or it was a premature labour. The birth units are midwife led with twin births co-supervised by an obstetric doctor, trained in multiple deliveries. The doctor is not present for the full 24 hours but may stay to assist if twin delivery is expected. Communication through radio was replaced by phone contact in 1996. In general after birth of the first twin, the second twin would be brought into a longitudinal position through external and rarely internal version if necessary. After twenty minutes or in cases requiring expedited delivery e.g. fetal distress, artificial rupture of the membranes and/or oxytocin would be commenced. Women who did not meet these criteria were referred to the nearest Thai Public Hospital for booking for caesarean delivery where the language spoken is Thai, which differs from the Karen and Burmese languages of the patient population.

From 1992 to 2008 dexamethasone was given at 28 weeks as a prophylactic dose to all twins, 8mg intra-muscularly eight hourly for 24 hours and when preterm labour was diagnosed. This was discontinued in 2009 and the drug was given only in the event of suspected or confirmed premature labour. During pregnancy all women with multiple gestation were treated for anaemia (except when haematocrit is higher than 40%), this included daily ferrous sulphate, folic acid, vitamin C and vitamin B12. During singleton pregnancy, women were treated for anaemia if the haematocrit was below 30%, otherwise women received anaemia prophylaxis with low dose ferrous sulphate and folic acid. In this setting, only oxygen, intravenous fluid, antibiotics, nasogastric feeding and phototherapy have been available in the special care baby unit (SCBU) from 2008 for the support of unwell preterm infants and reducing neonatal mortality by half [29]. SCBU improved the level of care available prior to 2008: oxygen, intramuscular antibiotics and nasogastric feeding. A neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) was not available routinely for this population. Midwifes of the SMRU were trained in Apgar and routinely assessed newborns from 1998 and this data was not provided on discharge from births in Thai Hospitals.

Participants

All women with singleton or twin pregnancies who delivered and/or attended SMRU ANCs between 1986 and 2020 were included. Pregnancies were excluded if the outcome (a high loss to follow-up remains a constant feature of this mobile, conflict affected and marginalized population) or EGA was unknown, or if EGA at birth was <28 weeks. The reason extreme prematurity (EGA <28 weeks) was excluded was because in this, as in other limited resource settings, there is only active management from an EGA of 28 weeks. A previous publication from the same population reviewing 21 years of birth outcomes from 22 to ≤28 weeks identified extreme prematurity as representing less than 1% of birth outcomes, a 1 year survival of less than 1% and an over-representation of twins [30]. Rare events including conjoined twin and papyraceus twin pregnancies were excluded [31]. Women identified with a triplet pregnancies were excluded as the number was small (n = 9). Missing data per variable extracted is presented in the study flow (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Flow chart of data available and missing values.

Fig 1

Variables

Anaemia was defined as haematocrit less than 30% measured during pregnancy. Maternal blood pressure was defined as abnormal if it was equal or above 140/90 mmHg. Preterm labour was defined as EGA <37 weeks. EGA was determined by ultrasound (2001 to 2020, chorionicity was not available). When ultrasound was not available (prior to 2001), Dubowitz Assessment of gestation after birth, a population specific model for women with multiple symphysis fundal height measurements, last menstrual period or by the woman’s reported self-estimate at first ANC. Antepartum haemorrhage (APH) was defined as antepartum blood loss (EGA ≥28 weeks) and postpartum haemorrhage was defined as blood loss ≥500 ml after birth. Small for gestational age (SGA) was defined as <10th percentile of birthweight for gestational age using the international standards of the INTERBIO-21st Project [32]. Congenital abnormalities were defined as any abnormality observed based on systematic physical exam, routinely since 1998. BMI and gestational weight gain were determined in all women at first ANC, but analysis was limited to women who attended in the first trimester, to have a baseline weight with minimal influence of the weight of the twin or singleton gestation. Twinning rate was defined as twin birth per 1,000 total births and was determined for 5-year intervals between 1986–2020. The use of dexamethasone for maturation of fetal lungs was provided as treatment in cases of threatened preterm labor <34 weeks up to 2013 and <35 weeks from 2014, and occasionally as prophylaxis based on the clinical presentation e.g. twin pregnancy in a woman with a history of preterm labor. Preterm birth was divided in two categories, 28 till <32 weeks EGA (very preterm) and 32 weeks till <37 weeks EGA (moderate and late preterm). Stillbirth rate was defined as number of stillbirths per 1,000 total births from EGA ≥28 weeks. Early Neonatal Death rate was defined as neonatal death in the first 7 days after birth per 1,000 live births from EGA≥28 weeks with the assumption that if the death was not recorded the infant was still alive [33]. Stillbirth and Early Neonatal Death rate were graphed from 28 to 42 weeks EGA at birth for the 35-year period 1986–2020. Stillbirth and Early Neonatal Death rate were described over three time periods 1990–2000, 2001–2010 and 2011–2020 to observe for change. Maternal death was defined as death of the mother during pregnancy and up to 6 weeks postpartum, with the caveat that it was with the same inclusion as the original cohort i.e. women who gave birth from 28 weeks with a known EGA.

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using R (version 4.2.1) for Windows. Continuous data were described using the mean, standard deviation minimum, and maximum. Categorical data were summarized using frequency and proportions. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to compare maternal complication outcomes between twin and singleton pregnancies, adjusting for the potential confounders: maternal age, parity and smoking. For perinatal and neonatal outcomes, the frequency and proportion were presented for twin 1, twin 2 and singletons. Unadjusted and adjusted Odds Ratios (ORs; 95% Confidence Intervals (CI)) were also presented for these outcomes comparing twin 1 and twin 2 to singletons, with adjustment for the confounders: maternal age, parity, gestational hypertension, pre-eclampsia, eclampsia and smoking. There is no adjustment for SGA or preterm birth as this is an outcome of twin pregnancy.

Results

Between 1986 and 2020, there were 81,294 singletons and 736 (1%, 736/81,294) multiple pregnancies, registered to SMRU ANC (Fig 1). The twinning rate was relatively stable over time, 5 (95%CI 3–10) per 1,000 births in the period from 1986–1990, and 9 (95%CI 7–11) per 1,000 births from 2016–2020 (S1 Table in the S1 File). In this unstable and migratory population 59,602 had a recorded outcome of birth of with an estimated gestation of 28 weeks or more (twin 597, singleton 59,005).

Maternal characteristics

Compared to women with singleton pregnancies, women with twin pregnancies were older, multiparous and more likely to be smokers (Table 1). For women who attended their first ANC in first trimester, the mean weight and BMI were similar in twin and singleton pregnancies. The mean gestational weight gain was higher in twin pregnancy, 9.3kg (standard deviation SD = 5.6) compared with singleton pregnancies, 8.0kg (SD = 4.5). During pregnancy, 51.2% (287/561) of the mothers with a twin pregnancy were found to be anaemic compared to 37.4% (20,694/55,265) of the singletons.

Table 1. Distribution of maternal characteristics for twin and singleton pregnancies.

Maternal characteristics Twin pregnancies
(n = 597)
Singleton pregnancies
(n = 59,005)
Age (years) at first antenatal visit,
Mean (SD) [min-max]
28.5 (6.5) [15–45] 26.2 (6.6) [13–53]
Nulliparous 20.3 (121/597) 31.7 (18,664/58,889)
Smoker 33.5 (166/496) 21.6 (10,224/47,430)
ANC in First trimester 43.4 (259/597) 43.5 (25,648/59,005)
First trimester; mean (SD) [min-max]
Weight (kg)
BMI (kg/m2)

48.4 (8.0) [31–76]
21.3 (3.3) [15.4–32.2]

48.0 (7.7) [28–108]
21.2 (3.2) [13.5–45.1]
Weight gain (kg) first trimester to birth; mean (SD) [min-max] 9.3 (5.6) [-7 to 24] 8.0 (4.5) [-7.4 to 29]
Haematocrit (%) at first antenatal visit first trimester;
Mean (SD) [min-max]
34.5 (4.1) [22–47] 35.6(3.8) [12–52]
Anaemic during pregnancy
    Nulliparous
    Multiparous
51.2 (287/561)
35.0 (41/117)
55.4 (246/444)
37.4 (20,694/55,265)
30.0 (5,277/17,579)
40.9 (15,391/37,599)

Data are % (n/N) unless otherwise stated; SD—standard deviation

Morbidity during pregnancy and labour

There was a higher proportion of obstetric complications during twin compared to singleton pregnancies (Table 2). After adjustment for maternal age, parity and smoking the adjusted odds (adjOR) of preterm labour for twins compared to singletons was 12.5 (95%CI: 8.6–18.1) for EGA from 28 to <32 weeks, and 10.0 (95%CI: 8.2–12.1) from 32 to <37 weeks. As expected, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and PPH were all more prevalent for women with twin compared to singleton pregnancies (Table 2).

Table 2. Obstetric complications in twin and singleton pregnancies and adjusted odds in twin compared to singletons.
Maternal complication outcome % (n) Twin Singleton adjOR (95% CI)a
Estimated Gestational Age (weeks) at birth (SD); mean [min-max] 36.5 (2.9) [2843] 38.9 (1.9) [2843] NA
Preterm labour
    28+0 to <32 weeks
    32+0 to <37 weeks
Term labour ≥37 weeks

7.9 (47/597)
36.0 (215/597)
56.1 (335/597)

1.1 (623/59,005)
8.3 (4,897/59,005)
90.6 (53,485/59,005)

12.5 (8.6–18.1)
10.0 (8.2–12.1)
Reference outcome
Gestational hypertension 9.9 (59/597) 3.9 (2,289/59,005) 2.4 (1.8–3.2)
Pre-eclampsia 7.0 (42/597) 1.7 (997/59,005) 3.9 (2.7–5.3)
Eclampsia 1.0 (6/597) 0.2 (136/59,005) 6.0 (2.3–12.7)
Antepartum haemorrhage 1.4 (8/578) 1.2 (363/31,018) 1.3 (0.6–2.4)
Postpartum haemorrhage 19.3 (106/550) 6.7 (1,894/28,369) 3.4 (2.7–4.3)
Transfusion for obstetric haemorrhage 7.2 (38/525) 1.7 (437/26,280) 5.1 (3.5–7.2)

Data are % (n/N) unless otherwise stated.

a Adjusted for maternal age, parity and smoking

Singleton and twin births

Mean gestational age at birth for twin pregnancies was 36.5 weeks (SD = 2.9), compared to 38.9 weeks (SD = 1.9) for singleton (Table 2). Three quarters, 75% (446/597), of the women with a twin pregnancy, birthed both babies vaginally, compared to 96% (56,626/59,005) for singletons (Table 3). Of women in the caesarean delivery group with a known position of twin 1, 61% (27/44) were non-cephalic. The percentage of caesarean delivery deliveries increased over time for twin and singleton pregnancies. For twin 1 and twin 2 the proportions in 1991–2000 were 13% (18/137) and 14% (19/137) and in 2011–2020 29% (63/219) and 34% (74/219) respectively; while caesarean deliveries for singletons in the same time periods were 2% (291/13,773), and 6% (1,331/21,960).

Table 3. Mode of birth for twin1, twin 2 and singletons.
Mode of birth Twin pregnancy Singleton pregnancy
(n = 59,009)
Twin one Twin two
Birthed Vaginally 78.2 (467/597) 74.7 (446/597) 96.0 (56,626/59,005)
Birthed by caesarean delivery 21.4 (128/597) 25.0 (149/597) 4.0 (2,365/59,005)

Data are % (n/N)

Perinatal and neonatal outcome

The mean birthweight was 2,214grams (SD = 528) for the first twin delivered, 2,124 grams (SD = 528) for twin 2 and 2,946 grams (SD = 482) for singletons (Table 4). A high proportion of newborns were SGA: 51.9% (295/568) for twin 1, 60.9% (335/550) for twin 2 and 22.6% (12,699/56,244) for singletons. As expected the risks of SGA in twins were high compared to singletons; adjOR 3.6 (95%CI: 3.0–4.4) for twin 1 and adjOR 4.9 (95% CI: 4.0–5.9) for twin 2.

Table 4. Perinatal and neonatal outcomes for twin 1 and twin 2 and singletons.

Twin pregnancy Singleton pregnancy OR (95% CI) compared to singletons
Twin 1 Twin 2 Twin 1 Twin 2
Birthweight (g),
Mean (SD) [Min–Max]
2,214 (528)
[710–4,000]
2,124 (528)
[700–3,900]
2,946 (482)
[520–5,580]
NA NA
Congenital abnormality % (n/N) 1.2 (7/593) 1.4 (8/593)
1.7 (970/58,141)
Unadjusted 0.7 (0.3–1.4)
Adjusted 0.7 (0.3–1.3)a
Unadjusted 0.8 (0.4–1.5)
Adjusted 0.8 (0.3–1.4)a
Small for gestational age % (n/N)) 51.9 (295/568) 60.9 (335/550)
22.6 (12,699/56,244)
Unadjusted 3.7 (3.1–4.4)
Adjusted 3.6 (3.0–4.4)a
Unadjusted 5.3 (4.5–6.4)
Adjusted 4.9 (4.0–5.9)a
APGAR <7 at 5 minutesb % (n/N) 1.7 (6/354) 2.1 (7/335)
1.5 (485/33,407)
Unadjusted 1.0 (0.4–2.3)
Adjusted 1.2 (0.5–2.4)a
Unadjusted 1.4 (0.6–2.8)
Adjusted 1.4 (0.6–2.8)a
Perinatal Mortality Stillbirth ratec N
25 per 1,000
(15/595)

64 per 1,000
(38/595)

12 per 1,000
(680/58,781)
Unadjusted 2.2 (1.3–3.6)
Adjusted 2.3 (1.3–3.8)a
Unadjusted 5.8 (4.1–8.1)
Adjusted 5.7 (3.8–8.1)a
Early Neonatal Death rateb,d N
48 per 1,000
(28/580)

50 per 1,000
(28/557)

10 per 1,000
(574/58,101)
Unadjusted 5.1 (3.4–7.4)
Adjusted 4.1 (2.4–6.5)a
Unadjusted 5.3 (3.5–7.7)
Adjusted 4.3 (2.5–6.7)a
Maternal Death % (n/N) 0.50 (3/597) 0.11 (65/59,005) Unadjusted 4.6 (1.1–12.4)
Adjusted 4.0 (0.95–11.4)a

a Adjusted for maternal age, parity, gestational hypertension, pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, smoking

b Stillbirth excluded

c Stillbirth per 1,000 total births

d Early Neonatal Death per 1,000 live births

Stillbirth

Compared to singletons, twin 1 (adjOR 2.3, 95% CI: 1.3–3.8) and twin 2 (adjOR 5.7, 95% CI 3.8–8.1) were at greater risk of stillbirth (Table 4). The stillbirth nadir occurred in the 37–38 week gestational age window, after which the stillbirth rate for twins increased, in comparison with the singletons where it remains stable from 37–40 weeks (Fig 2). Most of the twin 2 stillbirths occurred during vaginal birth (28 out of 36) with the remainder occurring during caesarean delivery, from which 6 were known emergency caesarean delivery. The position of twin one, when twin 2 had a stillbirth, was known in 30 cases, 26 were in vertex position and 4 in non-vertex. Any discordance greater than 40% between twins resulted in an excess of stillbirth of the smaller twin (S2 Table in the S1 File). The stillbirth rate was highest outside the hospital and SMRU (S3 Table in the S1 File).

Fig 2. Stillbirth rate for twin 1, twin 2 and singleton 1986–2020.

Fig 2

Shaded region is the 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate.

Early Neonatal Death

There was a four-fold increased odds in early neonatal death for twin births compared to singletons, adjOR 4.1 (2.4–6.5) for twin 1 and 4.3 (2.5–6.7) for twin 2 (Table 4). The early neonatal death rate was highest in premature neonates in both twins and singletons and was independent of mode of birth of twin 1 (Fig 3, S4 and S5 Tables in the S1 File). The early neonatal mortality decreased over time for both twins and singletons (Table 5).

Fig 3. Early Neonatal Death rate for twin 1, twin 2 and singleton 1986–2020.

Fig 3

Shaded region is the 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate.

Table 5. Proportion of perinatal mortality over time for twin 1, twin 2 and singletons.

Stillbirth rate (stillbirth/total births) Early neonatal mortality rate (early neonatal death/ live births)
Twin 1 Twin 2 Singleton Twin 1 Twin 2 Singletons
1991–2000 7 (1/137) 44 (6/137) 15 (208/13,584) 74 (10/136) 84 (11/131) 13 (178/13,376)
2001–2010 34 (8/232) 69 (16/232) 11 (241/21,982) 49 (11/223) 65 (14/216) 10 (218/21,741)
2011–2020 23 (5/219) 68 (15/219) 9 (196/21,954) 23 (5/214) 5 (1/204) 7 (159/21,758)

Data are rate per 1,000 (n/N)

Of first and second twins with early neonatal death: 75% (21/28) occurred at EGA<35 weeks at birth and 3 of their mothers received prophylactic doses of dexamethasone the week before birth. For twin 2, 2 out of 21 early neonatal deaths <35 weeks received 3 doses of 8 mg in the week before birth.

Maternal death

There were 0.5% (3/597) maternal deaths recorded in mothers with a twin pregnancy with an EGA ≥28 weeks compared with 0.11% (65/59,005) in mothers with a singleton pregnancy with an EGA ≥28 weeks (Table 5). There was no improvement of maternal death over three decades. (S6 Table in the S1 File) The maternal death of the twin pregnancies were due to PPH (n = 1), pulmonary embolism (n = 1) and unknown reasons as it occurred during sleep (n = 1). The cause of maternal deaths of the singleton pregnancies were: PPH (n = 16), sepsis/infection (n = 12), eclampsia (n = 11), malaria (n = 6), uterine rupture (n = 5), APH (n = 5) and unknown (n = 1).

Discussion

This study cohort of twin pregnancies in a LMIC setting is unique, filling a data gap for marginalized migrants and refugees. Twin pregnancy in these populations presents a significant risk for mother and babies: increasing mortality fourfold for mothers and more than two-fold for babies. Risk of maternal morbidity for twin mothers is more than doubled for pre-eclampsia, preterm birth, and PPH compared to singleton pregnancies. These findings are consistent with the international literature [5]. In data from 23 LMICs, pre-eclampsia was diagnosed in 1.1% of twin pregnancies compared to 0.5% of the singletons, and preterm birth affected 35.2% of twin pregnancies compared to 9.6% of singletons [5]. In this study pre-eclampsia and preterm birth were diagnosed in 7.1% and 44% of twin pregnancies and 1.7 and 9.4% of singletons respectively i.e. more than a four-fold increased risk of complications in twin pregnancies. While the proportion of pre-eclampsia is higher it is not however as high as reported in other studies [34].

In our cohort the natural twinning rate was around 5–10 per 1,000 births, lower than the worldwide rate of 12 per 1,000 births [1]. A low natural twinning rate <9 per 1,000 births was reported in East-Asia, including Thailand, while the stable rate across the study timeframes is reflective of young maternal age and the level of healthcare available to marginalized groups where there are no assisted fertility treatments [35].

In this cohort 75% of the twin pregnancies had a vaginal birth. This is equal to other low resource settings where around 57–90% of women with twin pregnancies routinely have vaginal birth [5, 36]. On the contrary, migrant women in high resource settings have higher caesarean rates compared to the non-migrant population, partly because of suboptimal healthcare through barriers as for example language [37, 38]. In this study setting of migrant women, however, the caesarean delivery rates in singletons (4.0%) and twins (25.0%) were lower than the overall caesarean delivery rate of Thailand, which was 32.7% for Thai nationals in 2017 [39]. One hospital in Thailand reported a caesarean delivery rate around 58% for Thai nationals with twin pregnancies [40]. Caesarean delivery for multiple and singleton pregnancy has been found to be associated with an increased risk of PPH and longer duration of recovery [41, 42]. We did not explore the difference between the mode of birth and PPH because the information of PPH at the referral hospital was not available to SMRU. For future births the inherent risks of a scarred uterus are amplified in a low resource setting where civil disruption may be a significant barrier to obtaining safe care in the next pregnancy. The marginalized population reported here are receiving cross-border care in a setting with high and growing rates of caesarean delivery in Thailand. Meanwhile, Myanmar is in the midst of another coup which seriously and negatively impacts access to maternal health services including contraception and delivery services, with implications for future safety for a woman with a uterine scar [43].

This setting has a high prevalence of SGA by international standards even in singleton pregnancies, as reported previously. This is most likely related to nutrition, helminth infection and maternal stature (average maternal height is 151cm) [44]. A high proportion, 17–32%, of SGA are reported for singletons in multiple countries in South East Asia [45]. These high rates of SGA may influence the overall caesarean delivery rate by decreasing the risk of cephalopelvic disproportion, but could increase caesarean delivery for the indication of fetal distress.

Access to hospital care for the marginalized populations reported here is limited due to a neglected health care system in Myanmar, distance, legal documentation, language barriers and financial resources. Twin births were associated with a higher perinatal mortality for both neonates compared to singletons, as expected. This is in line with other studies in low and high resource settings which show an increased association with perinatal mortality for vaginal birth in twin pregnancies [4, 5, 9, 36, 46]. However, in this cohort there was no indication that the doubling of the caesarean delivery rate over time resulted in lower stillbirth rates–in fact, there was a slight increase of stillbirths for twins over this time period. Overall, the stillbirth rate in twins in this cohort is similar to other low resource settings, around 40–60 per 1,000 births for twin pregnancies [5].

Our cohort shows that most of the early neonatal deaths regardless of singleton or twin status, are related to prematurity. Worldwide prematurity is the leading cause for perinatal mortality [47]. Most of the twins with early neonatal death did not receive dexamethasone within 7 days before birth for maturation of the fetal lungs due to arriving in established labor. Dexamethasone given within 7 days before birth could reduce neonatal mortality [48, 49]. The support of oxygen, intravenous fluid, antibiotics and nasogastric feeding have been available since 2008 in the SCBU for the support of preterm infants [29]. This support most likely influenced the observed decrease in the neonatal mortality [30].

The percentage of maternal death did not improve over time and is comparable to other low resource settings [5]. Previous data in this population have shown that screening and treatment decreased maternal death from malaria; and training of the staff in EmOC as in the ALSO course, decreased the proportion of PPH in maternal deaths over time [27, 50].

The data presented here with a higher odds of stillbirth with the second compared to the first twin is consistent with the published literature [51]. Our data shows no reduction of stillbirth for twin 2 over time. In failed vaginal birth of the 2nd twin the referral distance by car to the nearest hospital that can provide caesarean delivery impacts on the survival of these neonates [25]. Improved capacity through training on manual maneuvers has the potential to improve the outcome for vaginal births of the second twin when caesarean delivery is not easily accessible [5254].

Adequate guidelines with measurement of the time interval and training for twin pregnancy and deliveries are lacking in multiple low resource settings, which is probably an important factor for a higher fetal and maternal morbidity and mortality. Creating adequate context specific guidelines, with a focus on anaemia, prevention of (pre-)eclampsia and training for twin deliveries, especially for obstetric emergencies can improve the maternal and fetal outcome [55]. Further research should focus on reducing maternal and neonatal mortality. Implementing training in ultrasound chorionicity, improving use of antenatal corticosteroids, improving access to skilled attendants at birth, consideration of earlier induction of monochorionic twins, and upskilling in manual maneuvers for vaginal delivery of the aftercoming twin are directly actionable to reduce twin stillbirths.

This study shows a possible higher stillbirth proportion when the discordance in the weight of the twins is more than 40%. Discordance in weight is a possible sign of uteroplacental dysfunction and increases the risk of perinatal mortality [56]. There is weak evidence that caesarean delivery protects against stillbirth of the second twin if the second twin is 40% larger than the first twin [56, 57]. The relative risk on neonatal mortality when the discordance is more than 40% rate, is 1.6 (1.1–2.2) for vaginal birth compared to caesarean delivery [56]. The decision to do a vaginal delivery should be made case by case and should be influenced by the ultrasound and skills of the staff in handling obstetric emergencies.

One systematic review, from high resource settings with advanced healthcare, suggested that induction of twins should be considered from 36–37 weeks to prevent stillbirth (depending on chorionicity) [46]. However, in this setting there is limited neonatal care, with no advanced respiratory support possible, limited access to hospital care and not always precise gestational age estimation or information about chorionicity due to late first ANC visit. Our data does not have the chronicity included, but other data from Thailand suggest that around 50% of the twin pregnancies are monochorionic [58], and as suggested from a 50 year old publication from Burma (Myanmar) [59]. Our data suggest that induction around 37–38 weeks should be considered with the caveat that induction in a low resource setting compared to a high resource setting increases the risk of adverse outcomes, as there may be inadequate fetal and maternal monitoring [60]. However if diagnosis of chorionicity of the twin pregnancy and fetal monitoring is possible, induction of labour around 36–37 weeks EGA of monochorionic twin pregnancies is advised to prevent stillbirth [46].

The main limitation of this study is the observational and retrospective nature of the data although it presents the entire population cohort with few exclusions. The loss to follow-up was expected in this mobile, conflict affected and marginalized population. For more than 30 years all pregnant women have been encouraged to birth with skilled birth attendants with a reversal from 90% born at home to 90% born with skilled attendants [50]. A greater emphasis is placed on this in high risk situations such as multiple pregnancy which is a potential explanation for the difference in loss to follow up between twin and singleton pregnancies. Nevertheless the findings remain consistent with international literature indicating data robustness in this limited resource setting. Missing date are high for some variables for singleton and twin pregnancies, for Apgar scores (38–42%), blood transfusion (10–55%) and for singletons antepartum and postpartum haemorrhage (47–52%) which may bias these estimates of the morbidities and early neonatal mortality. However, the available data with a raised risk of morbidity in expected domains: such as anaemia, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and preterm birth in twin compared to singleton pregnancies suggests the available data is reliable and consistent with previous population and multi-country reviews [6, 61, 62]. Due to the difficulty to follow up women, maternal death and early neonatal death may be underestimated. Another limitation is ultrasound chorionicity in multiple pregnancy which was not available.

The strength of this study is the large unique cohort in a low resource setting in a marginalized population which provides useful information for future balanced counseling for women with multiple pregnancy where access to caesarean delivery can be difficult. It reinforces practical measures e.g. active management of delivery of twin 2, that can be improved for service providers. It helps direct training efforts for healthworkers supporting women from Myanmar given the dual setback of Covid-19 and the coup.

Conclusion

This study reports a low rate of twin pregnancy in refugee and migrants on the Thai-Myanmar border but with higher maternal mortality and morbidity, and perinatal mortality, compared to singleton pregnancies. The stillbirth for twin pregnancies did not improve with time compared to a reduction for singleton pregnancies. This requires efforts to build local capacity to improve early attendance at antenatal care with sonographers trained in accurate chorionicity, prevention and detection of anaemia, hypertensive disorders and preterm labor, and in labor: safe and practical protocols for the second twin.

Supporting information

S1 File. S1-S6 Table.

(DOCX)

pone.0301222.s001.docx (23.3KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all the staff and volunteers but especially local staff who worked for SMRU and provided the free care for the migrant and refugee population.

Abbreviations

LMICs

Low and Middle income countries

OR

Odds Ratio

PPH

postpartum hemorrhage

ANC

antenatal care

SMRU

Shoklo Malaria Research Unit

TBA

traditional birth attendant

EGA

estimated gestational age

APH

antepartum haemorrhage

SGA

Small for gestational age

CI

confidence interval

EmOC

Emergency obstetric Course

ALSO

Advanced Life Support in Obstetrics

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because this is a population of undocumented refugees and migrants and we do not have their permission to share their data. Data are available from the Mahidol-Oxford Research Unit Institutional data access committee upon reasonable request from researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data (contact Rita Chanviriyavuth, email rita@tropmedres.ac).

Funding Statement

This project is partially supported by Chiang Mai University to TJP and CA. JAS is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Leadership Investigator Grant (#1196068). The others authors received no funding for this study. The Shoklo Malaria Research Unit is supported in part by the Wellcome-Trust Major Overseas Programme in Southeast Asia (# 220211, https://doi.org/10.35802/220211; lead applicant Nicholas Day). For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. There was no additional external funding received for this study. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Monden C, Pison G, Smits J. Twin Peaks: more twinning in humans than ever before. Hum Reprod. 2021;36(6):1666–73. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deab029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Barrett JFR. Delivery of the term twin. Vol. 18, Best Practice and Research: Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2004. p. 625–30. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2004.04.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bogner G, Wallner V, Fazelnia C, Strobl M, Volgger B, Fischer T, et al. Delivery of the second twin: Influence of presentation on neonatal outcome, a case controlled study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Marete I, Tenge C, Pasha O, Goudar S, Chomba E, Patel A, et al. Perinatal outcomes of multiple-gestation pregnancies in Kenya, Zambia, Pakistan, India, Guatemala, and Argentina: A global network study. Am J Perinatol. 2014;31(2):125–32. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1338173 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Vogel JP, Torloni MR, Seuc A, Betrán AP, Widmer M, Souza JP, et al. Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes of Twin Pregnancy in 23 Low- and Middle-Income Countries. PLoS One. 2013;8(8). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070549 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.MacKay AP, Berg CJ, King JC, Duran C, Chang J. Pregnancy-Related Mortality Among Women With Multifetal Pregnancies. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2006. Mar;107(3):563–8. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000200045.91015.c6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wen SW, Fung KFK, Oppenheimer L, Demissie K, Yang Q, Walker M. Occurrence and Predictors of Cesarean Delivery for the Second Twin After Vaginal Delivery of the First Twin. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2004. Mar;103(3):413–9. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000110248.32558.fb [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Yang Q, Wen SW, Chen Y, Krewski D, Fung KFK, Walker M. Occurrence and clinical predictors of operative delivery for the vertex second twin after normal vaginal delivery of the first twin. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005. Jan;192(1):178–84. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.06.084 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Smith GCS, Shah I, White IR, Pell JP, Dobbie R. Mode of delivery and the risk of delivery-related perinatal death among twins at term: a retrospective cohort study of 8073 births [Internet]. 2005. Available from: www.blackwellpublishing.com/bjog [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Smith GCS, Fleming KM, White IR. Birth order of twins and risk of perinatal death related to delivery in England, Northern Ireland, and Wales, 1994–2003: Retrospective cohort study. Br Med J. 2007 Mar 17;334(7593):576–8. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39118.483819.55 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hoffmann E, Oldenburg A, Rode L, Tabor A, Rasmussen S, Skibsted L. Twin births: Cesarean section or vaginal delivery? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012. Apr;91(4):463–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01356.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Barrett JFR, Hannah ME, Hutton EK, Willan AR, Allen AC, Armson BA, et al. A Randomized Trial of Planned Cesarean or Vaginal Delivery for Twin Pregnancy. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013. Oct 3;369(14):1295–305. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1214939 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zafarmand MH, Goossens SMTA, Tajik P, Bossuyt PMM, Asztalos E v., Gardener G, et al. Planned Cesarean or planned vaginal delivery for twins: secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2021. Apr 1;57(4):582–91. doi: 10.1002/uog.21907 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ylilehto E, Palomäki O, Huhtala H, Uotila J. Term twin birth–impact of mode of delivery on outcome. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017. May 1;96(5):589–96. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13122 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Di Renzo GC, Gratacos E, Kurtser M, Malone F, Nambiar S, Sierra N, et al. Good clinical practice advice: Management of twin pregnancy. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2019. Mar 1;144(3):330–7. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12742 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Christiaens W, Bracke P. Assessment of social psychological determinants of satisfaction with childbirth in a cross-national perspective. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2007. Oct 26;7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sobhy S, Arroyo-Manzano D, Murugesu N, Karthikeyan G, Kumar V, Kaur I, et al. Maternal and perinatal mortality and complications associated with caesarean section in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet. 2019. May 11;393(10184):1973–82. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32386-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Murray-Davis B, McVittie J, Barrett JF, Hutton EK. Exploring Women’s Preferences for the Mode of Delivery in Twin Gestations: Results of the Twin Birth Study. Birth [Internet]. 2016. Dec;43(4):285–92. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/birt.12238 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Balaam MC, Akerjordet K, Lyberg A, Kaiser B, Schoening E, Fredriksen AM, et al. A qualitative review of migrant women’s perceptions of their needs and experiences related to pregnancy and childbirth. Vol. 69, Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2013. p. 1919–30. doi: 10.1111/jan.12139 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Pudpong N, Durier N, Julchoo S, Sainam P, Kuttiparambil B, Suphanchaimat R. Assessment of a voluntary non-profit health insurance scheme for migrants along the thai-myanmar border: A case study of the migrant fund in thailand. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019. Jul 2;16(14). doi: 10.3390/ijerph16142581 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kietpeerakool C, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Rattanakanokchai S, Vogel JP, Gülmezoglu AM. Pregnancy outcomes of women with previous caesarean sections: Secondary analysis of World Health Organization Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health. Sci Rep. 2019. Dec 1;9(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Parker DM, Carrara VI, Pukrittayakamee S, McGready R, Nosten FH. Malaria ecology along the Thailand-Myanmar border. Vol. 14, Malaria Journal. BioMed Central; 2015. doi: 10.1186/s12936-015-0921-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies. PLoS Medicine | www [Internet]. 2007;4(10):1623. Available from: http://www.epidem.com/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Nosten F, ter Kuile F, Maelankirri L, Decludt B, White NJ. Malaria during pregnancy in an area of unstable endemicity. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1991. Jul;85(4):424–9. doi: 10.1016/0035-9203(91)90205-d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Steinbrook E, Min MC, Kajeechiwa L, Wiladphaingern J, Paw MK, Pimanpanarak MPJ, et al. Distance matters: barriers to antenatal care and safe childbirth in a migrant population on the Thailand-Myanmar border from 2007 to 2015, a pregnancy cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021. Dec 1;21(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Rijken MJ, Lee SJ, Boel ME, Papageorghiou AT, Visser GHA, Dwell SLM, et al. Obstetric ultrasound scanning by local health workers in a refugee camp on the Thai-Burmese border. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2009. Oct;34(4):395–403. doi: 10.1002/uog.7350 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.McGready R, Rijken MJ, Turner C, Than HH, Tun NW, Min AM, et al. A mixed methods evaluation of Advanced Life Support in Obstetrics (ALSO) and Basic Life Support in Obstetrics (BLSO) in a resource-limited setting on the Thailand-Myanmar border. Wellcome Open Res. 2021;6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.World Health Organization partograph in management of labour. World Health Organization Maternal Health and Safe Motherhood Programme. Lancet. 1994. Jun 4;343(8910):1399–404. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Thielemans L, Trip-Hoving M, Landier J, Turner C, Prins TJ, Wouda EMN, et al. Indirect neonatal hyperbilirubinemia in hospitalized neonates on the Thai-Myanmar border: A review of neonatal medical records from 2009 to 2014. BMC Pediatr. 2018. Jun 12;18(1). doi: 10.1186/s12887-018-1165-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.McGready R, Paw MK, Wiladphaingern J, Min AM, Carrara VI, Moore KA, et al. The overlap between miscarriage and extreme preterm birth in a limited-resource setting on the Thailand-Myanmar border: a population cohort study. Wellcome Open Res. 2018. Dec 6;1:32. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.10352.3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.McGready R. Meet my uncle. The Lancet [Internet]. 1999. Jan;353(9150):414. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673605749989 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)74998-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Villar J, Ismail LC, Victora CG, Ohuma EO, Bertino E, Altman DG, et al. International standards for newborn weight, length, and head circumference by gestational age and sex: the Newborn Cross-Sectional Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project. The Lancet. 2014. Sep;384(9946):857–68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Janet S, Carrara VI, Simpson JA, Thin NWW, Say WW, Paw NTM, et al. Early neonatal mortality and neurological outcomes of neonatal resuscitation in a resource-limited setting on the Thailand-Myanmar border: A descriptive study. PLoS One. 2018. Jan 1;13(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Duley L. The Global Impact of Pre-eclampsia and Eclampsia. Semin Perinatol. 2009. Jun;33(3):130–7. doi: 10.1053/j.semperi.2009.02.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Smits J, Monden C. Twinning across the Developing World. Newell ML, editor. PLoS One [Internet]. 2011. Sep 28;6(9):e25239. Available from: doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025239 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bellizzi S, Sobel H, Betran AP, Temmerman M. Early neonatal mortality in twin pregnancy: Findings from 60 low- and middle-income countries. J Glob Health. 2018;8(1). doi: 10.7189/jogh.08.010404 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.van den Akker T, van Roosmalen J. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity in a migration perspective. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2016. Apr 1;32:26–38. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2015.08.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Eslier M, Morello R, Azria E, Dreyfus M. Comparative study between women born in France and migrant women with regard to their mode of delivery. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2020. Feb 1;49(2). doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2019.101648 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Liabsuetrakul T, Sukmanee J, Thungthong J, Lumbiganon P. Trend of cesarean section rates and correlations with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes: A secondary analysis of thai universal coverage scheme data. AJP Rep. 2019;9(4):E328–36. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1697656 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Chittacharoen A, Singhakun D, Ayudhya NIN. Pregnancy outcome of twin pregnancy in Ramathibodi Hospital. J Med Assoc Thai. 2006. Oct;89 Suppl 4:S76–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Chen J, Shen H, Chen YT, Chen CH, Lee KH, Torng PL. Experience in different modes of delivery in twin pregnancy. PLoS One [Internet]. 2022;17(3 March):1–10. Available from: doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265180 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Korb D, Deneux-Tharaux C, Goffinet F, Schmitz T. Severe maternal morbidity by mode of delivery in women with twin pregnancy and planned vaginal delivery. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Nuampa S, Ratinthorn A, Lumbiganon P, Rungreangkulkij S, Rujiraprasert N, Buaboon N, et al. “Because it eases my Childbirth Plan”: a qualitative study on factors contributing to preferences for caesarean section in Thailand. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023. Dec 1;23(1):280. doi: 10.1186/s12884-023-05576-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Lee SJ, Hashmi AH, Min AM, Gilder ME, Tun NW, Wah LL, et al. Short maternal stature and gestational weight gain among refugee and migrant women birthing appropriate for gestational age term newborns: A retrospective cohort on the Myanmar-Thailand border, 2004–2016. BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Feb 17;6(2). doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-004325 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Lee ACC, Kozuki N, Cousens S, Stevens GA, Blencowe H, Silveira MF, et al. Estimates of burden and consequences of infants born small for gestational age in low and middle income countries with INTERGROWTH-21 st standard: Analysis of CHERG datasets. BMJ (Online). 2017;358. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Cheong-See F, Schuit E, Arroyo-Manzano D, Khalil A, Barrett J, Joseph KS, et al. Prospective risk of stillbirth and neonatal complications in twin pregnancies: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ (Online). 2016;354. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4353 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Lehtonen L, Gimeno A, Parra-Llorca A, Vento M. Early neonatal death: A challenge worldwide. Vol. 22, Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine. W.B. Saunders Ltd; 2017. p. 153–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Lee SK, Lee SK, Shah PS. The role of antenatal corticosteroids in twin pregnancies complicated by preterm birth. In: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Mosby Inc.; 2016. p. 482.e1-482.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.05.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Bashir HA, Lufting-Leeffrers D, Myat Min A, Htun Win H, Win Tun N, Gay Wah T, et al. Antenatal corticosteroids reduce neonatal mortality in settings without assisted ventilatory support: a retrospective cohort study of early preterm births on the Thailand-Myanmar border. Wellcome Open Res. 2023. May 18;8:225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.McGready R, Boel M, Rijken MJ, Ashley EA, Cho T, Moo O, et al. Effect of early detection and treatment on malaria related maternal mortality on the north-western border of thailand 1986–2010. PLoS One. 2012. Jul 18;7(7). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0040244 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Hayata E, Nakata M, Morita M. Time trend analysis of perinatal mortality, stillbirth, and early neonatal mortality of multiple pregnancies for each gestational week from the year 2000 to 2019: A population-based study in Japan. PLoS One. 2022 Jul 1;17(7 July). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272075 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Aviram A, Barrett JFR, Melamed N, Mei-Dan E. Mode of delivery in multiple pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM [Internet]. 2022;4:100470. Available from: 10.1016/j. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Webster SN, Loughney AD. Internal podalic version with breech extraction. The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist. 2011. Jan;13(1):7–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Arabin B, Kyvernitakis I. Vaginal Delivery of the Second Nonvertex Twin Avoiding a Poor Outcome When the Presenting Part Is Not Engaged PROCEDURES FOR DELIVERING THE SECOND NONENGAGED NONVERTEX TWIN Model 1: Dichorionic Diamniotic Twin Pregnancy: Vertex-Transverse Position [Internet]. 2011. Available from: http://journals.lww.com/greenjournal [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Hanson C, Munjanja S, Binagwaho A, Vwalika B, Pembe AB, Jacinto E, et al. National policies and care provision in pregnancy and childbirth for twins in eastern and southern africa: A mixed-methods multi-country study. PLoS Med. 2019. Feb 1;16(2). doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002749 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Kontopoulos E V., Ananth C V., Smulian JC, Vintzileos AM. The influence of mode of delivery on twin neonatal mortality in the US: Variance by birth weight discordance. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005. Jan;192(1):252–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.05.056 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Christopher D, Robinson BK, Peaceman AM. An Evidence-Based Approach to Determining Route of Delivery for Twin Gestations. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2011;4:109–16. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Chantanahom N, Phupongi V. Clinical risk factors for preeclampsia in twin pregnancies. PLoS One. 2021. Apr 1;16(4 April). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249555 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Kyu H, Thu A, Cook PJL. Human Genetics in Burma. Hum Hered. 1981;31(5):291–5. doi: 10.1159/000153225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Ngene NC, Moodley J. Induction of labour in low-resource settings. Vol. 77, Best Practice and Research: Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Bailliere Tindall Ltd; 2021. p. 90–109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Laine K, Murzakanova G, Sole KB, Pay AD, Heradstveit S, Raïsänen S. Prevalence and risk of pre-eclampsia and gestational hypertension in twin pregnancies: A population-based register study. BMJ Open. 2019. Jul 1;9(7). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029908 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Santana DS, Silveira C, Costa ML, Souza RT, Surita FG, Souza JP, et al. Perinatal outcomes in twin pregnancies complicated by maternal morbidity: Evidence from the WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018. Nov 20;18(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Ahmed Mohamed Maged

24 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-21143Perinatal outcome of twin pregnancy and mode of birth in marginalized migrant and refugee populations on the Thai Myanmar border: a population cohort.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Prins,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Please respond to all reviewers comments point by point

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 08 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ahmed Mohamed Maged, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: 

"JAS is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Leadership Investigator Grant (#1196068). This project is partially supported by Chiang Mai University to TJP and CA. The others authors received no funding for this study. The Shoklo Malaria Research Unit is supported in part by the Wellcome-Trust Major Overseas Programme in Southeast Asia (grant number 220211, https://doi.org/10.35802/220211; lead applicant Nicholas Day). For the purpose of Open Access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission."

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. 

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

6. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: GENERAL OVERVIEW, ORIGINALITY

This paper retrospectively addresses the outcome of twin versus singleton deliveries in low- and middle-income countries with still some barriers to accessing hospital care, specifically in refugee and migrant clinics on the Thai Myanmar border between 1986 and 2020.

Even though we know that twin pregnancies and deliveries carry higher risks for maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality, the paper implies interesting aspects since the care is still concentrated on a few essentials without the chance of careful prevention of problems.

APPROACH /RESULTS

TITLE: The title might also imply the comparison, the authors performed, e.g.:

“Comparison of perinatal outcome and mode of birth between twin and singleton pregnancies in migrant and refugee populations on the Thai Myanmar border: a population cohort”.

ABSTRACT: Clear

INTROCUCTION: Please use the term “Caesarean delivery” instead of “section” throughout the paper; alternatively, they might say only cesareans.

METHODS.

It is a pity, that the authors excluded deliveries > 28weeks although it has been shown that in vertex-first twins between 26 and 32 weeks a vaginal delivery is possible in 213/248 cases (86%) and a planned vaginal delivery had no negative impact on the outcome as compared to a primary Cesarean (Sentilhes L et al. Neonatal outcome of very preterm twins: policy of planned vaginal or cesarean delivery. AJOG 2015;213(1):73 e1- e7.6). Similarly, in the JUMODA-Study with 232 cases with planned vaginal delivery and 192 planned cesareans there were no significant differences in survival without detected morbidity: 80.8% versus 80.2% (Korb et al. Survival without severe neonatal morbidity in very preterm twins according to planned mode of delivery. AJOG 2021;Suppl.1 , A.16, p.9). The authors should better explain why they excluded all deliveries < 28 gestational weeks, although this is an important outcome per se.

It was for me not completely clear whether the stillbirth rate was determined in the whole population or only in those with an expected gestational age of > 28 gestational weeks, please express this explicitly.

It remains completely unclear whether the attending obstetricians had sufficient training to perform vaginal deliveries in twins. Was there any attempt to differentiate between MC and DC twin pregnancy? Please specify who finally attended the twin deliveries and whether there protocols, e.g. for how long did they wait when the second twin was in breech or transverse presentation? Were they trained to perform internal version and/or breech extraction in the second twin, e.g. Arabin B, Kyvernitakis I. Vaginal delivery of the second nonvertex twin: avoiding a poor outcome when the presenting part is not engaged. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(4):950-4?

Although the authors report on ethical approval, this might not even have been required in accordance with the guidelines of the working group for the survey and utilization of secondary data (AGENS).

Last but not least: Were the data stored only as paper charts or also electronically? Unfortunately, this is not clearly stated.

RESULTS

In Figure 1, the authors demonstrate the “Flow Chart” of data and patients lost to follow up. Can the authors explain the high rate of > 15 000 pregnancies with lost to follow up or unknown outcome among singleton pregnancies? Can they explain that in both cohorts around 40% of Apgar values were missing?

Table 1 compares characteristics of twin and singleton cohorts, Table 3 the mode of delivery of twin 1, 2 and singletons. The authors should also demonstrate significant differences between the cohorts in a further column.

The authors should also explain whether life born neonates had access to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

In addition, it would be interesting to know the suspected reasons for maternal death in both cohorts given the serious consequences for the families and societies. The authors should also try to evaluate and whether there was an improvement over time in both cohorts.

ADEQUACY DISCUSSION

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: When the authors briefly summarize the results, they already admit that there was no improvement of perinatal mortality over time within the twin cohort. This is a serious outcome because even in this population the outcome of singletons improved.

There might be several reasons, which should be debated and proposed to local health care politicians such as a) early ultrasound for all pregnant women to diagnose not only a multiple pregnancy but also chorionicity. The authors should debate that given the low overall twin rate of this cohort the relative contribution of MCDA or even MCMA twins might be high, e.g. up to nearly 50% as compared to Western populations of where it is only one third.

The fact that stillbirths at the end of pregnancy mainly occur in these MC twin pregnancies is well known, but the conclusions not to induce labor at about 36-37 weeks might be wrong if diagnosis by ultrasound and FHR monitoring is available.

Another serious aspect seems to be the lack of teaching how to perform vaginal deliveries of twins, which can be taught. The poor skills are mainly reflected in the relative increase of cesareans in the second twin (combined twin deliveries), which is frequently iatrogenic reflecting poor skills of the physicians in charge. Combined deliveries also carry the highest risks of poor maternal and neonatal outcome. Rapid manual delivery of the second twin is mandatory in all cases where the second twin is not in vertex position and it would be interesting to know the time interval between the delivery of the first and second twin. Teaching –possibly with mannequins- and measuring the time interval is even possible in poor settings and seems mandatory.

MEANING OF THE FINDINGS/ CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The authors should also define the weight difference between the twins, e.g. discordance in cases where both birth weights are available. From the published data, weak evidence may support consideration of cesarean delivery in extremes of discordance, from a practical standpoint, this may apply when the second twin is approximately >40% larger than the presenting co-twin (Christopher D et al: An Evidence-Based Approach to Determining Route of Delivery for Twin Gestations. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2011;4(3/4):109-116) but also when it is largely smaller (more frequent).

RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS:

Prospective designs if available with consequent teaching efforts in early ultrasound and practical skills in vaginal delivery including pain treatment for manual maneuvers.

STRENGTH AND WEAKNESSES:

Strengths: As the authors, describe. It is interesting to see these results in settings without ART but also without any defensive medicine, where basic needs are the main issue.

Weaknesses: The impact for improvement politics by better access to prenatal care, ultrasound and skilled operators during birth is hard to evaluate in a retrospective setting but mandatory for the future.

CONCLUSIONS

The intention of this paper is to praise to mirror the outcome of both, singleton and twin pregnancies in a region with low income and a high rate of refugees. Therefore, it should be published. Several weaknesses are discussed and these aspects should be considered in a professional way. The conclusion of the paper should be very clear and strong to improve the care for both, the outcomes of mothers and their offspring in singleton and even more in twin pregnancies.

Reviewer #2: I am not sure that I misunderstand for the number of cases in table 3, please check the number of twin pregnancy (n=595) but in the detail: birthed vaginally is 597. Line 231, 2946 grams should be 2,946 grams.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Perinatal outcome of twin pregnancy.pdf

pone.0301222.s002.pdf (40KB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2024 Apr 18;19(4):e0301222. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301222.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


6 Dec 2023

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: GENERAL OVERVIEW, ORIGINALITY

This paper retrospectively addresses the outcome of twin versus singleton deliveries in low- and middle-income countries with still some barriers to accessing hospital care, specifically in refugee and migrant clinics on the Thai Myanmar border between 1986 and 2020.

Even though we know that twin pregnancies and deliveries carry higher risks for maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality, the paper implies interesting aspects since the care is still concentrated on a few essentials without the chance of careful prevention of problems.

APPROACH /RESULTS

TITLE: The title might also imply the comparison, the authors performed, e.g.:

“Comparison of perinatal outcome and mode of birth between twin and singleton pregnancies in migrant and refugee populations on the Thai Myanmar border: a population cohort”.

ABSTRACT: Clear

Good advice: amended

INTROCUCTION: Please use the term “Caesarean delivery” instead of “section” throughout the paper; alternatively, they might say only cesareans.

METHODS.

It is a pity, that the authors excluded deliveries > 28weeks although it has been shown that in vertex-first twins between 26 and 32 weeks a vaginal delivery is possible in 213/248 cases (86%) and a planned vaginal delivery had no negative impact on the outcome as compared to a primary Cesarean (Sentilhes L et al. Neonatal outcome of very preterm twins: policy of planned vaginal or cesarean delivery. AJOG 2015;213(1):73 e1- e7.6). Similarly, in the JUMODA-Study with 232 cases with planned vaginal delivery and 192 planned cesareans there were no significant differences in survival without detected morbidity: 80.8% versus 80.2% (Korb et al. Survival without severe neonatal morbidity in very preterm twins according to planned mode of delivery. AJOG 2021;Suppl.1 , A.16, p.9). The authors should better explain why they excluded all deliveries < 28 gestational weeks, although this is an important outcome per se.

line 162-166

The reason extreme prematurity (EGA <28 weeks) was excluded was because in this, as in other limited resource settings, there is only active management from an EGA of 28 weeks. A previous publication from the same population reviewing 21 years of birth outcomes from 22 to ≤28 weeks identified extreme prematurity as representing less than 1% of birth outcomes, a 1 year survival of less than 1% and an over-representation of twins[30].

It was for me not completely clear whether the stillbirth rate was determined in the whole population or only in those with an expected gestational age of > 28 gestational weeks, please express this explicitly.

Line 192

stillbirths per 1000 total births from EGA≥28 weeks.

It remains completely unclear whether the attending obstetricians had sufficient training to perform vaginal deliveries in twins.

Please see the answer (question after next) on who delivered the twin.

Was there any attempt to differentiate between MC and DC twin pregnancy?

Line 174-175

Ultrasound examination for chorionicity in multiple gestation is not available (added to the methods), but this a good practice point for improvement. This is now included in the methods and has been added to the discussion as a limitation (line 437-438).

Please specify who finally attended the twin deliveries and whether there protocols, e.g. for how long did they wait when the second twin was in breech or transverse presentation? Were they trained to perform internal version and/or breech extraction in the second twin, e.g. Arabin B, Kyvernitakis I. Vaginal delivery of the second nonvertex twin: avoiding a poor outcome when the presenting part is not engaged. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(4):950-4?

Line 133-139

The birth units are midwife led with twin births co-supervised by an obstetric doctor, trained in multiple deliveries. The doctor is not present for the full 24 hours but may stay to assist if twin delivery is expected. Communication through radio was replaced by phone contact in 1996. In general after birth of the first twin, the second twin would be brought into a longitudinal position through external and rarely internal version if necessary. After twenty minutes or in cases requiring expedited delivery e.g. fetal distress, artificial rupture of the membranes and/or oxytocin would be commenced.

Although the authors report on ethical approval, this might not even have been required in accordance with the guidelines of the working group for the survey and utilization of secondary data (AGENS).

Noted

Last but not least: Were the data stored only as paper charts or also electronically? Unfortunately, this is not clearly stated.

Line 97-100

Paper-based records prior to 2008 were extracted manually to an electronic database so that ANC and birth outcome data could be retrieved electronically. Information from records such as the paper-based partogram or the hospital referral forms was retrieved from archives stored at SMRU when required for clarification.

RESULTS

In Figure 1, the authors demonstrate the “Flow Chart” of data and patients lost to follow up. Can the authors explain the high rate of > 15 000 pregnancies with lost to follow up or unknown outcome among singleton pregnancies?

Line 160-161

(a high loss to follow-up remains a constant feature of this mobile, conflict affected and marginalized population)

As stated in methods (line 121-122), now for more than 30 years, all pregnant women have been encouraged to birth with trained midwives.

The discussion has been amended to clarify the situation as follow:

Line 423-428

The loss to follow-up was expected in this mobile, conflict affected and marginalized population. For more than 30 years all pregnant women have been encouraged to birth with skilled birth attendants with a reversal from 90% born at home to 90% born with skilled attendants[50]. A greater emphasis is placed on this in high risk situations such as multiple pregnancy which is a potential explanation for the difference in loss to follow up between twin and singleton pregnancies.

Can they explain that in both cohorts around 40% of Apgar values were missing?

Line 154-156

Midwifes of the SMRU were trained in Apgar and routinely assessed newborns from 1998 and this data was not provided on discharge from births in Thai Hospitals.

An additional table with furth analysis of the place of birth was added as supplementary table 3

Twin pregnancy Singleton pregnancy

Twin 1 Twin 2

SMRU 28 per 1000 (9/327) 67 per 1000 (22/327) 9 per 1000 (304/34,340)

Home/Other 61 per 1000 (5/82) 98 per 1000 (8/82) 7 per 1000 (97/13,574)

Hospital 6 per 1000 (1/177) 45 per 1000 (8/178) 33 per 1000 (158/4,749)

Table 1 compares characteristics of twin and singleton cohorts, Table 3 the mode of delivery of twin 1, 2 and singletons. The authors should also demonstrate significant differences between the cohorts in a further column.

For Table 1 we present the distribution of the maternal characteristics at first antenatal visit for twin and singleton pregnancies and comment qualitatively on any differences in the distributions, there is no hypothesis to test here and therefore we do no present p-values. This follows the recommendations of the STROBE guidelines for reporting of observational studies (see item 14a; https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040297 ).

For Table 3, we present the percentage (n/N) of delivery type for twin 1, twin 2, and singleton, and comment qualitatively on the differences, this is not a hypothesis of interest to test and therefore we do provide p-values.

The authors should also explain whether life born neonates had access to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).

Line 150-154

In this setting, only oxygen, intravenous fluid, antibiotics, nasogastric feeding and phototherapy have been available in the special care baby unit (SCBU) from 2008 for the support of unwell preterm infants and reducing neonatal mortality by half [29]. SCBU improved the level of care available prior to 2008: oxygen, intramuscular antibiotics and nasogastric feeding. A neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) was not available routinely for this population.

In addition, it would be interesting to know the suspected reasons for maternal death in both cohorts given the serious consequences for the families and societies. The authors should also try to evaluate and whether there was an improvement over time in both cohorts.

Line 312-316

There was no improvement of maternal death over three decades. (S6 Table ) The maternal death of the twin pregnancies were due to PPH (n=1), pulmonary embolism (n=1) and unknown reasons as it occurred during sleep (n=1). The cause of maternal deaths of the singleton pregnancies were: PPH (n=16), sepsis/infection (n=12), eclampsia (n=11), malaria (n=6), uterine rupture (n=5), APH (n=5) and unknown (n=1) .

% Maternal Death (Maternal Death/total births)

Twin Singleton

1991-2000 0 (0/137) 0.1 (16/13,584)

2001-2010 0 (0/232) 0.1 (21/21,982)

2011-2020 1 (3/219) 0.1 (20/21,954)

ADEQUACY DISCUSSION

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: When the authors briefly summarize the results, they already admit that there was no improvement of perinatal mortality over time within the twin cohort. This is a serious outcome because even in this population the outcome of singletons improved.

There might be several reasons, which should be debated and proposed to local health care politicians such as a) early ultrasound for all pregnant women to diagnose not only a multiple pregnancy but also chorionicity. The authors should debate that given the low overall twin rate of this cohort the relative contribution of MCDA or even MCMA twins might be high, e.g. up to nearly 50% as compared to Western populations of where it is only one third.

The fact that stillbirths at the end of pregnancy mainly occur in these MC twin pregnancies is well known, but the conclusions not to induce labor at about 36-37 weeks might be wrong if diagnosis by ultrasound and FHR monitoring is available.

Line 413-416

Our data does not have the chronicity included, but other data from Thailand suggest that around 50% of the twin pregnancies are monochorionic [58], and as suggested from a 50 year old publication from Burma (Myanmar)[59].

And line 418-420

However if diagnosis of chorionicity of the twin pregnancy and fetal monitoring is possible, induction of labour around 36-37 weeks EGA of monochorionic twin pregnancies is advised to prevent stillbirth[46].

Another serious aspect seems to be the lack of teaching how to perform vaginal deliveries of twins, which can be taught. The poor skills are mainly reflected in the relative increase of cesareans in the second twin (combined twin deliveries), which is frequently iatrogenic reflecting poor skills of the physicians in charge. Combined deliveries also carry the highest risks of poor maternal and neonatal outcome. Rapid manual delivery of the second twin is mandatory in all cases where the second twin is not in vertex position and it would be interesting to know the time interval between the delivery of the first and second twin. Teaching –possibly with mannequins- and measuring the time interval is even possible in poor settings and seems mandatory.

Line 388-390

Improved capacity through training on manual maneuvers has the potential to improve the outcome for vaginal births of the second twin when caesarean delivery is not easily accessible[52–54].

Line 395-399

Further research should focus on reducing maternal and neonatal mortality. Implementing training in ultrasound chorionicity, improving access to skilled attendants at birth, consideration of earlier induction of monochorionic twins, and upskilling in manual maneuvers for vaginal delivery of the aftercoming twin are directly actionable to reduce twin stillbirths.

MEANING OF THE FINDINGS/ CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The authors should also define the weight difference between the twins, e.g. discordance in cases where both birth weights are available. From the published data, weak evidence may support consideration of cesarean delivery in extremes of discordance, from a practical standpoint, this may apply when the second twin is approximately >40% larger than the presenting co-twin (Christopher D et al: An Evidence-Based Approach to Determining Route of Delivery for Twin Gestations. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2011;4(3/4):109-116) but also when it is largely smaller (more frequent).

Thank you for this suggestion to look at the data in a constructive way.

Supplementary table 2: Stillbirth proportion (% (n/n [95%CI] ) in twin pregnancies and discordance of weight of Twin 1 and Twin 2

Stillbirth twin 1 Stillbirth twin 2

Weight difference Twin 1 and twin 2 less than 40% 1.3 (7/520) [0.5-2.8] 3.9 (20/520) [2.2-5.5]

Weight Twin 1 > 40% larger than twin 2. 0 (0/34) [NA] 14.7 (5/34) [4.4-28.1]

Weight Twin 2 > 40% larger than twin 1. 11.1 (2/18) [1.4-34.7] 5.6 (1/18) [0.1-27.3]

Line 282-284

Any discordance greater than 40% between twins resulted in an excess of stillbirth of the smaller twin.

Line 400-407

This study shows a possible higher stillbirth proportion when the discordance in the weight of the twins is more than 40%. Discordance in weight is a possible sign of uteroplacental dysfunction and increases risk of perinatal mortality[56]. There is weak evidence that caesarean delivery protects against stillbirth of the second twin if the second twin is 40% larger than the first twin [56,57]. The relative risk on neonatal mortality when the discordance is more than 40% rate, is 1.6 (1.1-2.2) for vaginal birth compared to caesarean delivery [56]. The decision to do a vaginal delivery should be made case by case and should be influenced by the ultrasound and skills of the staff in handling obstetric emergencies.

RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS:

Prospective designs if available with consequent teaching efforts in early ultrasound and practical skills in vaginal delivery including pain treatment for manual maneuvers.

Line 395-399

Further research should focus on reducing maternal and neonatal mortality. Implementing training in ultrasound chorionicity, improving access to skilled attendants at birth, consideration of earlier induction of monochorionic twins, and upskilling in manual maneuvers for vaginal delivery of the aftercoming twin are directly actionable to reduce twin stillbirths.

STRENGTH AND WEAKNESSES:

Strengths: As the authors, describe. It is interesting to see these results in settings without ART but also without any defensive medicine, where basic needs are the main issue.

Weaknesses: The impact for improvement politics by better access to prenatal care, ultrasound and skilled operators during birth is hard to evaluate in a retrospective setting but mandatory for the future.

CONCLUSIONS

The intention of this paper is to praise to mirror the outcome of both, singleton and twin pregnancies in a region with low income and a high rate of refugees. Therefore, it should be published. Several weaknesses are discussed and these aspects should be considered in a professional way. The conclusion of the paper should be very clear and strong to improve the care for both, the outcomes of mothers and their offspring in singleton and even more in twin pregnancies.

Conclusion is amended line 448-454

Reviewer #2: I am not sure that I misunderstand for the number of cases in table 3, please check the number of twin pregnancy (n=595) but in the detail: birthed vaginally is 597. Line 231, 2946 grams should be 2,946 grams.

Table 3 Thank you and amended to n=597 line 257 and in line 262 changed in 2,946

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Decision Letter 1

Ahmed Mohamed Maged

13 Mar 2024

Comparison of perinatal outcome and mode of birth of twin and singleton pregnancies in migrant and refugee populations on the Thai Myanmar border: a population cohort.

PONE-D-23-21143R1

Dear Dr. Prins,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ahmed Mohamed Maged, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have now considered the aspects previously criticized and improved the manuscript.

To conclude, the manuscript should now be considered for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Ahmed Mohamed Maged

22 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-21143R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Prins,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Ahmed Mohamed Maged

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. S1-S6 Table.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0301222.s001.docx (23.3KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Perinatal outcome of twin pregnancy.pdf

    pone.0301222.s002.pdf (40KB, pdf)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly because this is a population of undocumented refugees and migrants and we do not have their permission to share their data. Data are available from the Mahidol-Oxford Research Unit Institutional data access committee upon reasonable request from researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data (contact Rita Chanviriyavuth, email rita@tropmedres.ac).


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES