Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28095821›Full record

SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2017

Weighing as a stand-alone intervention does not reduce excessive gestational weight gain compared to routine antenatal care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Shanna M Fealy, Rachael M Taylor, Maralyn Foureur, John Attia, Lyn Ebert, Alessandra Bisquera, Alexis J Hure

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Health-related Behaviors in Pregnancy: A Key to Achieve Better Outcomes.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2020
    Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Shanna M FealySchool of Nursing & Midwifery University of Newcastle, Port Macquarie Campus, PO Box 210, Port Macquarie, 2444, NSW, Australia. shanna.fealy@newcastle.edu.au.
Rachael M TaylorFaculty of Health & Medicine School of Medicine & Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Maralyn FoureurSchool of Nursing & Midwifery University of Newcastle, Port Macquarie Campus, PO Box 210, Port Macquarie, 2444, NSW, Australia.
John AttiaHunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Lyn EbertFaculty of Health & Medicine School of Medicine & Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Alessandra BisqueraHunter Medical Research Institute, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Alexis J HureFaculty of Health & Medicine School of Medicine & Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Hunter Medical Research Institute · AUMacquarie University · AUUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AUUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExcessive gestational weight gain is associated with short and long-term adverse maternal and infant health outcomes, independent of pre-pregnancy body mass index. Weighing pregnant women as a stand-alone intervention during antenatal visits is suggested to reduce pregnancy weight gain. In the absence of effective interventions to reduce excessive gestational gain within the real world setting, this study aims to test if routine weighing as a stand-alone intervention can reduce total pregnancy weight gain and, in particular, excessive gestational weight gain.

methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted between November 2014 and January 2016, and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Seven databases were searched. A priori eligibility criteria were applied to published literature by at least two independent reviewers. Studies considered methodologically rigorous, as per the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Quality Criteria Checklist for Primary Research, were included. Meta-analysis was conducted using fixed-effects models.

resultsA total of 5223 (non-duplicated) records were screened, resulting in two RCTs that were pooled for meta-analysis (n = 1068 randomised participants; n = 538 intervention, n = 534 control). No difference in total weight gain per week was observed between intervention and control groups (weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.00 kg/week, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.02). There was also no reduction in excessive gestational weight gain between intervention and control, according to pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI). However, total weight gain was lower in underweight women (n = 23, BMI <18.5 kg/m

conclusionWeighing as a stand-alone intervention is not worse nor better at reducing excessive gestational weight gain than routine antenatal care.

Indexed as

Body Mass IndexRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicDirective CounselingFemaleHumansPregnancyPrenatal CareWeight GainAntenatal careGestationPregnancyWeighingWeight gain

Identifiers

PMID28095821
PMCPMC5240423
OpenAlexW2571930091

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.