ArticleMaternal & child nutrition2016
Validity of birth certificate-derived maternal weight data in twin pregnancies.
Article in Maternal & child nutrition, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Breastfeeding Initiation as Related to the Interaction of Race/Ethnicity and Maternal Diabetes.Breastfeeding medicine : the official journal of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine · 2019Article
- Gestational Weight Gain and Adverse Birth Outcomes in Twin Pregnancies.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2019Article
- Validity of birth certificate-derived maternal weight data in twin pregnancies.Maternal & child nutrition · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Birth certificates are an important source of pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) and gestational weight gain (GWG) data for surveillance and aetiologic studies, but little is known about their validity in twin pregnancies. Twins experience high rates of adverse perinatal outcomes that have been associated with BMI and GWG in singletons. Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of birth certificate-derived pre-pregnancy BMI and GWG compared with medical record-derived data in a sample of 186 twin pregnancies at a teaching hospital in Pennsylvania (2003-2010). Twelve strata were created by simultaneous stratification on pre-pregnancy BMI (underweight, normal weight/overweight, obese class 1, obese classes 2 and 3) and GWG (<20th, 20-80th, >80th percentile). The agreement of birth certificate-derived pre-pregnancy BMI category with medical record BMI category was lowest among underweight mothers [75% (95% confidence interval 51-91%) ] and highest among normal/overweight [97% (90-99%) ] and obese classes 2 and 3 mothers [97% (85-99%) ]. Agreement for GWG category from the birth certificate varied from 57% (41-70%) for GWG >80th percentile to 80% (65-91%) and 82% (72-89%) for GWG <20th and 20th-80th percentiles, respectively. The misclassification of BMI and GWG was primarily due to error in pre-pregnancy weight rather than weight at delivery or height. Agreement proportions for twins were not meaningfully different from the proportions in a comparable sample of singleton pregnancies. These data suggest that birth certificate-based BMI and GWG data are prone to error in twin pregnancies. Those who use these data should conduct internal validation studies and adjust their results using bias analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.