ArticleAnnals of human biology2016
The prevalence of rapid weight gain in infancy differs by the growth reference and age interval used for evaluation.
Article in Annals of human biology, 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.
- Postnatal Rapid Weight Gain of Japanese Infants Based on the World Health Organization Child Growth Standards.Cureus · 2025Article
- Predicting childhood overweight status by accelerated weight gain from neonatal period to infancy.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2023Article
- Weight Gain Trajectory Predicts Long-term Overweight and Obesity After Pediatric Liver Transplant.Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition · 2019Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInfant rapid weight gain (RWG) may predict subsequent obesity, but there are inconsistencies in the growth references and age intervals used for assessment.
methodsThis study evaluated whether the prevalence of RWG (an increase of >0.67 in weight-for-age z-score) differed by growth reference (2006 WHO standards vs 2000 CDC references) and age interval of assessment (0-3, 0-6, 6-12 and 0-12 months). Pooled data from singleton term infants from two observational studies on maternal mood disorders during pregnancy were used (n = 161). Differences in RWG prevalence by growth reference and age interval were tested using Cochran's Q and McNemar's tests.
resultsThe CDC reference produced a higher RWG prevalence (14% of infants additionally categorized as RWG, p < 0.0001) within the 0-3 month age interval compared to the WHO standards; this pattern was reversed for the 6-12 and 0-12 month intervals. RWG prevalence did not differ across age interval within the WHO standards, but did differ with the CDC references (range: 22% for 0-3 months to 4.2% for 6-12 months, p < 0.0001).
conclusionsCaution is advised when comparing studies with different criteria for RWG. Future studies should use the 2006 WHO standards and a consistent age interval of evaluation.
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.