Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25492396›Full record

ArticlePaediatric and perinatal epidemiology2015

Comparison of gestational weight gain z-scores and traditional weight gain measures in relation to perinatal outcomes.

Lisa M Bodnar, Jennifer A Hutcheon, Sara M Parisi, Sarah J Pugh, Barbara Abrams

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  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. Pre-pregnancy body mass index, gestational weight gain and postnatal growth in preterm infants.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2021
    Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

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.
Jennifer A Hutcheon
Sara M Parisi
Sarah J Pugh
Barbara Abrams
University of Pittsburgh · USBerkeley Public Health Division · USUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

Innovative Approaches to Inform Evidence-Based Pregnancy Weight Gain GuidelinesR01HD072008 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI BODNAR, LISA M, HUTCHEON, JENNIFER ANNE · 2013 to 2016
$2.4M
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
Canadian Institutes of Health ResearchNICHD NIH HHS R01 HD072008NICHD NIH HHS R21 HD065807NICHD NIH HHS R21HD065807R01 HD072008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConventional measures of gestational weight gain (GWG) are correlated with pregnancy duration, and may induce bias to studies of GWG and perinatal outcomes. A maternal weight-gain-for-gestational-age z-score chart is a new tool that allows total GWG to be classified as a standardised z-score that is independent of gestational duration. Our objective was to compare associations with perinatal outcomes when GWG was assessed using gestational age-standardised z-scores and conventional GWG measures.

methodsWe studied normal-weight (n=522 120) and overweight (n=237 923) women who delivered liveborn, singleton infants in Pennsylvania, 2003-11. GWG was expressed using gestational age-standardised z-scores and three traditional measures: total GWG (kg), rate of GWG (kg per week of gestation), and the GWG adequacy ratio (observed GWG/GWG recommended by the Institute of Medicine). Log-binomial regression models were used to assess associations between GWG and preterm birth, and small- and large-for-gestational-age births, while adjusting for race/ethnicity, education, smoking, and other confounders.

resultsThe association between GWG z-score and preterm birth was approximately U-shaped. The risk of preterm birth associated with weight gain <10th percentile of each measure was substantially overestimated when GWG was classified using total kilogram and was moderately overestimated using rate of GWG or GWG adequacy ratio. All GWG measures had similar associations with small- or large-for-gestational-age birth.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that studies of gestational age-dependent outcomes misspecify associations if total GWG, rate of GWG, or GWG adequacy ratio are used. The potential for gestational age-related bias can be eliminated by using z-score charts to classify total GWG.

Indexed as

Gestational AgeWeight GainAdultFemaleHumansLinear ModelsPennsylvaniaPregnancyPregnancy OutcomePremature BirthRisk FactorsYoung Adultpregnancypreterm birthweight gain

Identifiers

PMID25492396
PMCPMC4299718
OpenAlexW1606396930

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.