Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24673550›Full record

ArticlePaediatric and perinatal epidemiology2014

Validity of birth certificate-derived maternal weight data.

Lisa M Bodnar, Barbara Abrams, Marnie Bertolet, Alison D Gernand, Sara M Parisi, Katherine P Himes, Timothy L Lash

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

64 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Environmental Risk and Adverse Perinatal Health Indicators in New York City: A Geospatial Hotspot Analysis.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Social Inequities in Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors at Multiple Levels Persist Among Mothers in Texas.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Lisa M BodnarDepartment of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Magee-Womens Research Institute, Pittsburgh, PA.
Barbara Abrams
Marnie Bertolet
Alison D Gernand
Sara M Parisi
Katherine P Himes
Timothy L Lash

Funding

Maternal obesity, weight gain, and the black-white disparity in pregnancy outcomeR21HD065807 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI BODNAR, LISA M · 2011 to 2012
$443k
NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD065807
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStudies using vital records-based maternal weight data have become more common, but the validity of these data is uncertain.

methodsWe evaluated the accuracy of prepregnancy body mass index (BMI) and gestational weight gain (GWG) reported on birth certificates using medical record data in 1204 births at a teaching hospital in Pennsylvania from 2003 to 2010. Deliveries at this hospital were representative of births statewide with respect to BMI, GWG, race/ethnicity, and preterm birth. Forty-eight strata were created by simultaneous stratification on prepregnancy BMI (underweight, normal weight/overweight, obese class 1, obese classes 2 and 3), GWG (<20th, 20-80th, >80th percentile), race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black), and gestational age (term, preterm).

resultsThe agreement of birth certificate-derived prepregnancy BMI category with medical record BMI category was highest in the normal weight/overweight and obese class 2 and 3 groups. Agreement varied from 52% to 100% across racial/ethnic and gestational age strata. GWG category from the birth registry agreed with medical records for 41-83% of deliveries, and agreement tended to be the poorest for very low and very high GWG. The misclassification of GWG was driven by errors in reported prepregnancy weight rather than maternal weight at delivery, and its magnitude depended on prepregnancy BMI category and gestational age at delivery.

conclusionsMaternal weight data, particularly at the extremes, are poorly reported on birth certificates. Investigators should devote resources to well-designed validation studies, the results of which can be used to adjust for measurement errors by bias analysis.

Indexed as

Birth CertificatesMaternal WelfareMothersWeight GainAdultBody Mass IndexCohort StudiesFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornPennsylvaniaPopulation SurveillancePregnancyReproducibility of Resultsbirth certificatevalidityweight

Identifiers

PMID24673550
PMCPMC4036639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.