Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29266702›Full record

SynthesisObesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity2018

Predicting childhood overweight and obesity using maternal and early life risk factors: a systematic review.

N Ziauddeen, P J Roderick, N S Macklon, N A Alwan

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.5field-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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Predicting childhood overweight and obesity using maternal and early life risk factors: a systematic review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

N ZiauddeenAcademic Unit of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
P J RoderickAcademic Unit of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
N S MacklonAcademic Unit of Human Development and Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
N A AlwanAcademic Unit of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
University of Southampton · GB

Funding

Academy of Medical Sciences HOP001\1060Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChildhood obesity is a serious public health challenge, and identification of high-risk populations with early intervention to prevent its development is a priority. We aimed to systematically review prediction models for childhood overweight/obesity and critically assess the methodology of their development, validation and reporting.

methodsMedline and Embase were searched systematically for studies describing the development and/or validation of a prediction model/score for overweight and obesity between 1 to 13 years of age. Data were extracted using the Cochrane CHARMS checklist for Prognosis Methods.

resultsTen studies were identified that developed (one), developed and validated (seven) or externally validated an existing (two) prediction model. Six out of eight models were developed using automated variable selection methods. Two studies used multiple imputation to handle missing data. From all studies, 30,475 participants were included. Of 25 predictors, only seven were included in more than one model with maternal body mass index, birthweight and gender the most common.

conclusionSeveral prediction models exist, but most have not been externally validated or compared with existing models to improve predictive performance. Methodological limitations in model development and validation combined with non-standard reporting restrict the implementation of existing models for the prevention of childhood obesity.

Indexed as

MothersChildDietEducational StatusExerciseFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansLife StyleOverweightPediatric ObesityPredictive Value of TestsPregnancyRisk FactorsChildhood obesitymaternal factorsoverweightprediction models

Identifiers

PMID29266702
PMCPMC5805129
OpenAlexW2778871791

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.