ArticleRevista de saude publica2017
Validity of self-reported weight, height, and BMI in mothers of the research Birth in Brazil.
Article in Revista de saude publica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between sleep quality and weight gain in pregnancy: a cross-sectional study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Accuracy of self-reported height, weight, and waist circumference in poor, rural areas of China.PeerJ · 2024Article
- Agreement between self-reported pre-pregnancy weight and measured first-trimester weight in Brazilian women.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Article
- Association of Maternal Prepregnancy Body Mass Index With Fetal Growth and Neonatal Thalamic Brain Connectivity Among Adolescent and Young Women.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- Poor maternal nutritional status before and during pregnancy is associated with suspected child developmental delay in 2-year old Brazilian children.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Neonatal adiposity may increase plasmatic cytokines.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the accuracy of information on pre-gestational weight, height, pre-gestational body mass index, and weight at the last prenatal appointment, according to maternal characteristics and sociodemographic and prenatal variables.
methodsThe study was developed using data from the face-to-face questionnaire and prenatal card (gold standard) of the study "Birth in Brazil, 2011-2012". To evaluate the differences between the measured and self-reported anthropometric variables, we used the the Kruskal-Wallis test for the variables divided into quartiles. For the continuous variables, we used the Wilcoxon test, Bland-Altman plot, and average difference between the information measured and reported by the women. We estimated sensitivity and the intraclass correlation coefficient.
resultsIn the study, 17,093 women had the prenatal card. There was an underestimation of pre-gestational weight of 1.51 kg (SD = 3.44) and body mass index of 0.79 kg/m2 (SD = 1.72) and overestimation of height of 0.75 cm (SD = 3.03) and weight at the last appointment of 0.22 kg (SD = 2.09). The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) obtained for the anthropometric variables were: height (ICC = 0.89), pre-gestational weight (ICC = 0.96), pre-gestational body mass index (ICC = 0.92), and weight at the last appointment (ICC = 0.98).
conclusionsThe results suggest that the mentioned anthropometric variables were valid for the study population, and they may be used in studies of populations with similar characteristics.
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.