-
BMC Psychology Jan 2022In the general population, 10.6% of people favor their left hand over the right for motor tasks. Previous research suggests higher prevalence of atypical (left-, mixed-,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In the general population, 10.6% of people favor their left hand over the right for motor tasks. Previous research suggests higher prevalence of atypical (left-, mixed-, or non-right-) handedness in (i) twins compared to singletons, and in (ii) monozygotic compared to dizygotic twins. Moreover, (iii) studies have shown a higher rate of handedness concordance in monozygotic compared to dizygotic twins, in line with genetic factors playing a role for handedness.
METHODS
By means of a systematic review, we identified 59 studies from previous literature and performed three sets of random effects meta-analyses on (i) twin-to-singleton Odds Ratios (21 studies, n = 189,422 individuals) and (ii) monozygotic-to-dizygotic twin Odds Ratios (48 studies, n = 63,295 individuals), both times for prevalence of left-, mixed-, and non-right-handedness. For monozygotic and dizygotic twin pairs we compared (iii) handedness concordance Odds Ratios (44 studies, n = 36,217 twin pairs). We also tested for potential effects of moderating variables, such as sex, age, the method used to assess handedness, and the twins' zygosity.
RESULTS
We found (i) evidence for higher prevalence of left- (Odds Ratio = 1.40, 95% Confidence Interval = [1.26, 1.57]) and non-right- (Odds Ratio = 1.36, 95% Confidence Interval = [1.22, 1.52]), but not mixed-handedness (Odds Ratio = 1.08, 95% Confidence Interval = [0.52, 2.27]) among twins compared to singletons. We further showed a decrease in Odds Ratios in more recent studies (post-1975: Odds Ratio = 1.30, 95% Confidence Interval = [1.17, 1.45]) compared to earlier studies (pre-1975: Odds Ratio = 1.90, 95% Confidence Interval = [1.59-2.27]). While there was (ii) no difference between monozygotic and dizygotic twins regarding prevalence of left- (Odds Ratio = 0.98, 95% Confidence Interval = [0.89, 1.07]), mixed- (Odds Ratio = 0.96, 95% Confidence Interval = [0.46, 1.99]), or non-right-handedness (Odds Ratio = 1.01, 95% Confidence Interval = [0.91, 1.12]), we found that (iii) handedness concordance was elevated among monozygotic compared to dizygotic twin pairs (Odds Ratio = 1.11, 95% Confidence Interval = [1.06, 1.18]). By means of moderator analyses, we did not find evidence for effects of potentially confounding variables.
CONCLUSION
We provide the largest and most comprehensive meta-analysis on handedness in twins. Although a raw, unadjusted analysis found a higher prevalence of left- and non-right-, but not mixed-handedness among twins compared to singletons, left-handedness was substantially more prevalent in earlier than in more recent studies. The single large, recent study which included birth weight, Apgar score and gestational age as covariates found no twin-singleton difference in handedness rate, but these covariates could not be included in the present meta-analysis. Together, the secular shift and the influence of covariates probably make it unsafe to conclude that twinning has a genuine relationship to handedness.
Topics: Birth Weight; Functional Laterality; Humans; Prevalence; Twins, Dizygotic; Twins, Monozygotic
PubMed: 35033205
DOI: 10.1186/s40359-021-00695-3 -
EFORT Open Reviews May 2022Idiopathic scoliosis is the most common spinal deformity and affects 1-3% of children and adolescents. Idiopathic scoliosis may run in families and the purpose of this... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Idiopathic scoliosis is the most common spinal deformity and affects 1-3% of children and adolescents. Idiopathic scoliosis may run in families and the purpose of this systematic review was to describe the degree of heritability.
METHODS
We searched Medline, Web of Science and EMBASE for family and twin studies reporting heritability estimates for idiopathic scoliosis, or studies from which heritability estimates could be calculated. Reference lists were screened for additional papers. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42022307329).
RESULTS
The literature search identified 1134 reports. After full-text screening, nine eligible reports were included for data extraction. Seven were twin studies containing between 5 and 526 pairs, and two were family studies with 1149 and 2732 individuals, respectively. Quality was 'good' in four studies and 'fair' in five studies. In general, studies with radiograph-confirmed diagnosis reported higher heritability estimates than studies with self-reported diagnosis. Population-based twin studies reported lower heritability estimates than clinic-based twin studies. Family-based studies reported higher heritability estimates than twin studies. Pairwise concordance for scoliosis ranged from 0.11 to 1.00 in monozygotic twins and from 0 to 1.0 in dizygotic twins. A meta-analysis of three studies resulted in a narrow sense heritability estimate of 0.57 (95% CI: 0.29-0.86).
CONCLUSION
Twin and family studies indicate a hereditary component in idiopathic scoliosis, but study heterogeneity is large, and the degree of the heritability is uncertain. Nevertheless, known genetic variants associated with idiopathic scoliosis can still only explain a minor part of heritability.
PubMed: 35638601
DOI: 10.1530/EOR-22-0026 -
Translational Psychiatry Jun 2023The first systematic review and meta-analysis of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) genetic epidemiology was published approximately 20 years ago. Considering the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The first systematic review and meta-analysis of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) genetic epidemiology was published approximately 20 years ago. Considering the relevance of all the studies published since 2001, the current study aimed to update the state-of-art knowledge on the field. All published data concerning the genetic epidemiology of OCD from the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, BVS, and OpenGrey databases were searched by two independent researchers until September 30, 2021. To be included, the articles had to fulfill the following criteria: OCD diagnosis provided by standardized and validated instruments; or medical records; inclusion of a control group for comparison and case-control, cohort or twin study designs. The analysis units were the first-degree relatives (FDRs) of OCD or control probands and the co-twins in twin pairs. The outcomes of interest were the familial recurrence rates of OCD and the correlations of OCS in monozygotic compared with dizygotic twins. Nineteen family, twenty-nine twin, and six population-based studies were included. The main findings were that OCD is a prevalent and highly familial disorder, especially among the relatives of children and adolescent probands, that OCD has a phenotypic heritability of around 50%; and that the higher OCS correlations between MZ twins were mainly due to additive genetic or to non-shared environmental components.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Humans; Molecular Epidemiology; Twins, Dizygotic; Databases, Factual; Research Design
PubMed: 37380645
DOI: 10.1038/s41398-023-02433-2 -
JAMA Network Open Aug 2022Although infancy is the most rapid period of postnatal growth and development, factors associated with variation in infant traits are not well understood. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Although infancy is the most rapid period of postnatal growth and development, factors associated with variation in infant traits are not well understood.
OBJECTIVE
To synthesize the large twin study literature partitioning phenotypic variance in psychological traits and developmental milestones in infancy into estimates of heritability and shared and nonshared environment.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, PsycINFO, and references of included publications were searched up to February 11, 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Peer-reviewed publications using the classical twin design to study psychological traits and developmental milestones from birth to 2 years old were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Data were extracted in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and categorized using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: Children and Youth Version. Data were pooled in 3-level random effects models, incorporating within-cohort variance in outcome measurement and between-cohort variance. Data were analyzed from March 2021 through September 2021.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcomes were monozygotic and dizygotic twin correlations. These were used to calculate genetic and shared and nonshared environment estimates.
RESULTS
Among 139 publications that were systematically retrieved, data were available on 79 044 twin pairs (31 053 monozygotic and 47 991 dizygotic pairs), 52 independent samples, and 21 countries. Meta-analyses were conducted on psychological traits and developmental milestones from 106 publications organized into 10 categories of functioning, disability, and health. Moderate to high genetic estimates for 8 categories were found, the highest of which was psychomotor functions (pooled h2, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.25-0.79; P < .001). Several categories of traits had substantial shared environment estimates, the highest being mental functions of language (pooled c2, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.24-0.86; P = .001). All examined categories of traits had moderate or high nonshared environment estimates, the highest of which were emotional functions (pooled e2, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.33-0.50; P < .001) and family relationships (pooled e2, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.30-0.55; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
These findings may be an important source of information to guide future gene discovery research, public perspectives on nature and nurture, and clinical insights into the degree to which family history and environments may estimate major domains of infant functioning, disability, and health in psychological traits and developmental milestones.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Cohort Studies; Forecasting; Humans; Infant; Phenotype; Twins, Dizygotic
PubMed: 35994288
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.27887 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Jul 2022Monochorionic dizygotic twins are a rare condition, mostly related to assisted reproductive technology. This type of twinning is burdened by the same risk of pregnancy...
BACKGROUND
Monochorionic dizygotic twins are a rare condition, mostly related to assisted reproductive technology. This type of twinning is burdened by the same risk of pregnancy complications found in monochorionic monozygotic pregnancies.
CASE PRESENTATION
We report a case of spontaneous monochorionic dizygotic twins sharing situs inversus abdominalis and isolated levocardia, with only one twin affected by biliary atresia with splenic malformation syndrome. We also conducted a literature review of the 14 available documented monochorionic dizygotic twin gestations spontaneously conceived.
CONCLUSIONS
It is still unclear how this unusual type of twinning can occur in spontaneous conception. The evidence so far suggest the importance to timely diagnose the chorionicity, in order to adequately manage the typical complications associated with monochorionicity.
Topics: Chorion; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy, Twin; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted; Twins, Dizygotic; Twins, Monozygotic
PubMed: 35836143
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-022-04866-x -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth May 2023This review aimed to identify guidelines with recommendations applicable to the antenatal management of dichorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies within high-income...
OBJECTIVE
This review aimed to identify guidelines with recommendations applicable to the antenatal management of dichorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies within high-income countries, appraise their methodological quality, and discuss the similarities and variability across guidelines.
METHOD
A systematic literature review of electronic databases was performed. Manual searches of guideline repositories and websites of professional organisations were performed to identify additional guidelines. The protocol for this systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021248586, 25 June 2021). AGREE II and AGREE-REX tools were applied to assess the quality of eligible guidelines. A narrative and thematic synthesis described and compared the guidelines and their recommendations.
RESULTS
Twenty-four guidelines were included, from which 483 recommendations were identified across 4 international organisations and 12 countries. Guidelines addressed eight themes and recommendations were classified accordingly: chorionicity and dating (103 recommendations), fetal growth (105 recommendations), termination of pregnancy (12 recommendations), fetal death (13 recommendations), fetal anomalies (65 recommendations), antenatal care (65 recommendations), preterm labour (56 recommendations) and birth (54 recommendations). Guidelines showed significant variability in recommendations, with conflicting recommendations regarding non-invasive preterm testing, definitions surrounding selective fetal growth restriction, screening for preterm labour and the timing of birth. Guidelines lacked a focus on standard antenatal management of DCDA twins, management of discordant fetal anomaly and single fetal demise.
CONCLUSIONS
Specific guidance for dichorionic diamniotic twins is overall indistinct and access to guidance regarding the antenatal management of these pregnancies is currently difficult. Management of discordant fetal anomaly or single fetal demise needs greater consideration.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Pregnancy, Twin; Pregnancy Outcome; Fetal Death; Twins, Dizygotic; Obstetric Labor, Premature; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37179347
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-023-05652-z -
Medicine Jun 2020Published findings on perinatal outcomes of multifetal pregnancy reduction (MPR) of dichorionic diamniotic (DCDA) twin pregnancy to singleton are controversial. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Published findings on perinatal outcomes of multifetal pregnancy reduction (MPR) of dichorionic diamniotic (DCDA) twin pregnancy to singleton are controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to appraise the effects of MPR of DCDA twin pregnancy versus expectant management on perinatal outcomes.
METHODS
Four electronic databases were searched from their inception to June 15, 2019, to identify publications that appraised MPR before 15 weeks of gestation. Studies reporting perinatal outcomes of both MPR of DCDA twin pregnancy to singleton and expectant management were considered. The relative risks (RRs) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Six studies involving 7398 participants showed that MPR of DCDA twin pregnancy to singleton was associated with a lower risk of preterm birth (5 studies with 7297 participants; RR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.22-0.40; P < .001) and higher birth weight (4 studies with 5763 participants; mean differences: 548.10 g, 95% CI: 424.04-672.15; P < .001) than expectant management; there was no difference in the occurrence of miscarriages (5 studies with 7355 participants; RR: 1.57, 95% CI: 0.90-2.75; P = .11). Sensitivity analysis showed that all the results were stable and reliable, with the omission of 2 studies with serious risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
Compared to expectant management, MPR of DCDA twin pregnancy to singleton prevents preterm birth and low birth weight, without increasing the risk of miscarriages. Regarding perinatal morbidity related to preterm birth, MPR can be reserved as a remediation measure to improve the perinatal outcomes of DCDA twin pregnancies.
Topics: Adult; Amnion; Chorion; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Pregnancy Reduction, Multifetal; Pregnancy, Twin; Twinning, Dizygotic; Twins, Dizygotic; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 32569212
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000020730