Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26628074›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2015

Maternal super-obesity and perinatal outcomes in Australia: a national population-based cohort study.

Elizabeth A Sullivan, Jan E Dickinson, Geraldine A Vaughan, Michael J Peek, David Ellwood, Caroline S E Homer, Marian Knight, Claire McLintock, Alex Wang, Wendy Pollock and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Pregnancy Outcomes in Women with Super Obesity.Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Overweight, obesity and excessive weight gain in pregnancy as risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes: A narrative review.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2022
    Review
  9. Socioeconomic Inequalities and Obesity in South Africa-A Decomposition Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Assessing Support for Advantaged and Disadvantaged Groups: A Comparison of Urban Food Environments.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  19. 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

16 authors.

Elizabeth A SullivanFaculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway NSW, 2007, Sydney, Australia. elizabeth.sullivan@uts.edu.au.
Jan E DickinsonSchool of Women's and Infants' Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia. Jan.Dickinson@uwa.edu.au.
Geraldine A VaughanFaculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway NSW, 2007, Sydney, Australia. Geraldine.Vaughan@uts.edu.au.
Michael J PeekDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Medical School College of Medicine, Biology and Environment, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. michael.peek@sydney.edu.au.
David EllwoodSchool of Medicine, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia. d.ellwood@griffith.edu.au.
Caroline S E HomerFaculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway NSW, 2007, Sydney, Australia. Caroline.Homer@uts.edu.au.
Marian KnightNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. marian.knight@npeu.ox.ac.uk.
Claire McLintockObstetrics and Gynaecology, National Women's Health, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand. CMcLintock@adhb.govt.nz.
Alex WangFaculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway NSW, 2007, Sydney, Australia. Alex.wang@uts.edu.au.
Wendy PollockJudith Lumley Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. W.Pollock@latrobe.edu.au.
Lisa Jackson PulverMuru Marri Indigenous Health Unit, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. lisa.jackson-pulver@unsw.edu.au.
Zhuoyang LiFaculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway NSW, 2007, Sydney, Australia. Zhuoyang.Li@uts.edu.au.
Nasrin JavidFaculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway NSW, 2007, Sydney, Australia. Nasrin.Javid@uts.edu.au.
Elizabeth Denney-WilsonFaculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway NSW, 2007, Sydney, Australia. Elizabeth.Denney-Wilson@uts.edu.au.
Leonie CallawayRoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. l.callaway@uq.edu.au.
Australasian Maternity Outcomes Surveillance System

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-RP-011-032
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSuper-obesity is associated with significantly elevated rates of obstetric complications, adverse perinatal outcomes and interventions. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence, risk factors, management and perinatal outcomes of super-obese women giving birth in Australia.

methodsA national population-based cohort study. Super-obese pregnant women (body mass index (BMI) >50 kg/m(2) or weight >140 kg) who gave birth between January 1 and October 31, 2010 and a comparison cohort were identified using the Australasian Maternity Outcomes Surveillance System (AMOSS). Outcomes included maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Prevalence estimates calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using multivariable logistic regression.

results370 super-obese women with a median BMI of 52.8 kg/m(2) (range 40.9-79.9 kg/m(2)) and prevalence of 2.1 per 1 000 women giving birth (95% CI: 1.96-2.40). Super-obese women were significantly more likely to be public patients (96.2%), smoke (23.8%) and be socio-economically disadvantaged (36.2%). Compared with other women, super-obese women had a significantly higher risk for obstetric (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 2.42, 95% CI: 1.77-3.29) and medical (AOR: 2.89, 95% CI: 2.64-4.11) complications during pregnancy, birth by caesarean section (51.6%) and admission to special care (HDU/ICU) (6.2%). The 372 babies born to 365 super-obese women with outcomes known had significantly higher rates of birthweight ≥ 4500 g (AOR 19.94, 95 % CI: 6.81-58.36), hospital transfer (AOR 3.81, 95 % CI: 1.93-7.55) and admission to Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) (AOR 1.83, 95% CI: 1.27-2.65) compared to babies of the comparison group, but not prematurity (10.5% versus 9.2%) or perinatal mortality (11.0 (95% CI: 4.3-28.0) versus 6.6 (95% CI: 2.6- 16.8) per 1 000 singleton births).

conclusionsSuper-obesity in pregnancy in Australia is associated with increased rates of pregnancy and birth complications, and with social disadvantage. There is an urgent need to further address risk factors leading to super-obesity among pregnant women and for maternity services to better address pre-pregnancy and pregnancy care to reduce associated inequalities in perinatal outcomes.

Indexed as

Body Mass IndexAdultApgar ScoreAustraliaBirth WeightBody WeightCesarean SectionFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornMaternal Health ServicesObesity, MorbidOdds RatioPerinatal MortalityPre-EclampsiaPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID26628074
PMCPMC4667490

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.