140 likes | 241 Views
Is Maternal Menstrual Cycle Length Associated with Twinning?. Author 1 Author 2. Background. Menstrual Cycles & Twinning Shorter cycles -- ↑ T winning Time to Pregnancy (TTP) & Twinning ↓ TTP -- ↑ T winning Menstrual Cycles & Fertility Regular menstrual cycles -- ↑ Fertility
E N D
Is Maternal Menstrual Cycle Length Associated with Twinning? Author 1 Author 2
Background • Menstrual Cycles & Twinning • Shorter cycles -- ↑ Twinning • Time to Pregnancy (TTP) & Twinning • ↓ TTP -- ↑ Twinning • Menstrual Cycles & Fertility • Regular menstrual cycles -- ↑ Fertility • Short & long cycles -- ↑ Spontaneous abortion • Body Mass Index • ↑ BMI -- long, irregular cycles • ↑ BMI -- ↑ twinning
Why this question? • Goal to determine whether menstrual cycle characteristics can act as a surrogate for reproductive health • “Natural” twinning trends may be used as an indicator of reproductive health • Unique cohort to study twinning • 223 Twins • Before ART and OC use were common • Menstrual cycle length was asked before birth outcome (less recall bias)
Study Population 97 Twins 31 Twins
Exposure & Outcome • Menstrual Cycle Length: • Short (<25 days) • Average (25-35 days) • Long/Irregular (> 35 days) • Twinning: • In CHDS: 223/20307 births (1.07%) • Final dataset - 97 twins • Discordant sex twin dataset - 31 twins
Age* Race* Education* Pre-pregnancy BMI Current BMI Smoking status* Cigarettes/day* Alcohol use Coffee intake* Tea intake Age of menarche* Pregnancy outcome Parity Interval between pregnancies Univariate Analyses • * Associated with menstrual cycle length • Associated with twinning
Chi Square Analyses Number and percents of singletons and twins for each category of menstrual cycle length, Child Health and Development Studies, Oakland, CA, 1959-1967.
Bivariate Analyses Log likelihood test: Wald =3.88 p=0.14
Bivariate Analysis Log likelihood test: Wald =12.0 p=0.21
Conclusion • Found association between menstrual cycle length and twinning • Limitations include the large amount of missing data • Potential confounders did not change the estimate of the effect • Interaction was not significant
Future Directions Restricted Data Set Potential Exclusions DZ MZ MZ DZ ♀♀ ♀♀ ♀♀ ♀♂ ♂♂ ♂♂ ♂♂