Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26196130›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Weight Loss Instead of Weight Gain within the Guidelines in Obese Women during Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of Maternal and Infant Outcomes.

Mufiza Zia Kapadia, Christina K Park, Joseph Beyene, Lucy Giglia, Cindy Maxwell, Sarah D McDonald

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
9.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 120 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mufiza Zia KapadiaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Christina K ParkDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Joseph BeyeneDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Lucy GigliaDepartment of Pediatrics, Division of General Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Cindy MaxwellDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital and University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sarah D McDonaldDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Radiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
McMaster University · CAMount Sinai Hospital · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research 950-229920Canadian Institutes of Health Research CNI95357Canadian Institutes of Health Research KRS-134301
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundControversy exists about how much, if any, weight obese pregnant women should gain. While the revised Institute of Medicine guidelines on gestational weight gain (GWG) in 2009 recommended a weight gain of 5-9 kg for obese pregnant women, many studies suggested even gestational weight loss (GWL) for obese women.

objectivesA systematic review was conducted to summarize pregnancy outcomes in obese women with GWL compared to GWG within the 2009 Institute of Medicine guidelines (5-9 kg).

designFive databases were searched from 1 January 2009 to 31 July 2014. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the PRISMA Statement were followed. A modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess individual study quality. Small for gestational age (SGA), large for gestational age (LGA) and preterm birth were our primary outcomes.

resultsSix cohort studies were included, none of which assessed preterm birth. Compared to GWG within the guidelines, women with GWL had higher odds of SGA <10th percentile (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45-2.14) and SGA <3rd percentile (AOR 1.62; 95% CI 1.19-2.20) but lower odds of LGA >90th percentile (AOR 0.57; 95% CI 0.52-0.62). There was a trend towards a graded relationship between SGA <10th percentile and each of three obesity classes (I: AOR 1.73; 95% CI 1.53-1.97; II: AOR 1.63; 95% CI 1.44-1.85 and III: AOR 1.39; 95% CI 1.17-1.66, respectively).

conclusionDespite decreased odds of LGA, increased odds of SGA and a lack of information on preterm birth indicate that GWL should not be advocated in general for obese women.

Indexed as

Weight GainWeight LossFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, Small for Gestational AgeObesityPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPregnancy OutcomePremature Birth

Identifiers

PMID26196130
PMCPMC4509670
OpenAlexW1549059776

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.