Skip to main content
. 2021 Mar 9;2021(3):CD012553. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012553.pub2

Nakayama 2014.

Study characteristics
Patient Sampling Monochorionic twin pregnancies delivered at single referral centre, CRL at 8–10 weeks' gestation
Patient characteristics and setting 126 MCDA twin pregnancies; GA: mean 37.4 weeks; single referral centre
Index tests CRL
Target condition and reference standard(s) Birth weight discordance
Flow and timing Excluded women with terminated pregnancies, 1 or both fetal death before 10 weeks, twin‐reversed arterial perfusion sequence, triplets or reduction of high‐order multiples, and anomalies diagnosed before 10 weeks' gestation
Comparative  
Notes  
Methodological quality
Item Authors' judgement Risk of bias Applicability concerns
DOMAIN 1: Patient Selection
Was a consecutive or random sample of patients enrolled? Yes    
Was a case‐control design avoided? Yes    
Did the study avoid inappropriate exclusions? Yes    
Could the selection of patients have introduced bias?   Low risk  
Are there concerns that the included patients and setting do not match the review question?     Low concern
DOMAIN 2: Index Test (All tests)
Were the index test results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the reference standard? Yes    
If a threshold was used, was it pre‐specified? Yes    
Could the conduct or interpretation of the index test have introduced bias?   Unclear risk  
Are there concerns that the index test, its conduct, or interpretation differ from the review question?     Unclear
DOMAIN 3: Reference Standard
Is the reference standards likely to correctly classify the target condition? Unclear    
Were the reference standard results interpreted without knowledge of the results of the index tests? Yes    
Could the reference standard, its conduct, or its interpretation have introduced bias?   Unclear risk  
Are there concerns that the target condition as defined by the reference standard does not match the question?     Low concern
DOMAIN 4: Flow and Timing
Was there an appropriate interval between index test and reference standard? Yes    
Did all patients receive the same reference standard? Yes    
Were all patients included in the analysis? Yes    
Could the patient flow have introduced bias?   Low risk