Embedded Files
Announcement: Check out the IVTSF's open volunteer positions!
The IVTSF literature is categorized by methodological approach and thematic domain to facilitate structured review of the evidence related to vanishing twin syndrome (VTS) and multifetal loss. Categories include narrative and systematic reviews, observational and cohort studies, qualitative and mixed-methods research, diagnostic studies, and investigations into psychological and ethical dimensions. Summaries emphasize key findings, clinical relevance, and terminology to support both scholarly and practical use.
Sources included were published primarily over the past 20 years, with limited exceptions for landmark studies before that time. This index was developed by Nichole Cubbage and Carolina Negrin.
Current Clinical Guidelines on VTS
Current Clinical Guidelines on VTS
Although VTS is a relatively common outcome in multiple pregnancies, it remains inconsistently addressed across clinical guidelines worldwide. The table above compares how leading organisations currently incorporate VTS into their recommendations, revealing important gaps in areas such as communication, bereavement care, and long-term management. These differences highlight an urgent need for clearer, more comprehensive, and patient-centred guidance. More information and supporting resources may be found in section 3.3 of Cubbage et al. (2025).
Understanding the Evidence Base for Vanishing Twin Syndrome
Understanding the Evidence Base for Vanishing Twin Syndrome
The evidence pyramid provides a general framework for understanding how different study designs contribute to clinical knowledge, with higher levels typically reflecting greater methodological rigor in evaluating outcomes. However, for conditions such as VTS, where gaps in awareness, documentation, and patient-centered communication persist, insights from across all levels of evidence are still needed. Notably, there are currently no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) specifically focused on VTS. Among higher-level evidence, only a small number of systematic reviews (approximately three) directly examine VTS, with the remainder of the literature relying heavily on observational and cohort-based designs. This underscores both the methodological limitations and the emerging nature of the evidence base.
The table below further illustrates how each study type contributes uniquely to domains such as effectiveness, safety, and patient experience. In this context, qualitative studies, case reports, and observational research are particularly valuable in capturing lived experiences and identifying gaps that may not yet be addressed in higher-level evidence. This integrated approach supports more comprehensive, equitable, and informed care.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse