Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:29:39.361Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IS THE NATURAL TWINNING RATE NOW STABLE?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2000

M. F. G. MURPHY ,
K. HEY ,
D. WHITEMAN ,
M. O'DONNELL ,
B. WILLIS  and
D. BARLOW
M. F. G. MURPHY
Affiliation:
ICRF General Practice Research Group
K. HEY
Affiliation:
ICRF General Practice Research Group
D. WHITEMAN
Affiliation:
ICRF General Practice Research Group
M. O'DONNELL
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, Institute of Health Sciences, Old Road, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LF
B. WILLIS
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, Institute of Health Sciences, Old Road, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LF
D. BARLOW
Affiliation:
Nuffield Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As contribution to a recent debate (James, 1998; Murphy et al., 1997, 1998) the proportion of twins following ovulation induction (OI) or assisted conception (AC) in 1994 in Oxfordshire and West Berkshire was estimated, and by extrapolation the natural twinning rate in England and Wales was judged to have maintained a plateau phase since the 1970s. Similar figures for 1995 and 1996 from the same study, and hence a more stable local estimate, are now provided. The proportions, as before, were estimated from women's responses to a questionnaire within a case-control study, with ascertainment from general practitioners' records or hospital case-notes for non-responders or for those excluded from the study originally. In 1994, 1995 and 1996 the proportion of twins following OI/AC was overall 27% (24%, 30% and 27% respectively). Restriction to the 87% locally resident made no difference. The national crude twinning rate for those years was overall 13·3 per 1000 maternities (12·8, 13·6 and 13·4 respectively).

Type
Short Report
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , April 2000 , pp. 279 - 281
Copyright
© 2000 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)