Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29843642›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2018

Gestational weight gain in Chinese women -- results from a retrospective cohort in Changsha, China.

Xin Huang, Hongzhuan Tan, Ming Cai, Ting Shi, Chunmei Mi, Jun Lei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Maternal Height Is an Independent Risk of Adverse Outcomes in Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors.

Xin HuangDepartment of Preventive Medicine, School of Medicine, Hunan Normal University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Hongzhuan TanDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Ming CaiMaternity and Child Care Hospital of Yuelu District, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Ting ShiMaternity and Child Care Hospital of Tianxin District, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Chunmei MiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Road, Yuelu District, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, Province, China. 615871972@qq.com.
Jun LeiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Road, Yuelu District, Changsha, 410013, Hunan, Province, China. junlei.xy3yy@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3192-9560

Funding

Key Laboratory of Environmental Pollution Monitoring and Disease Control, Ministry of Education, Guizhou Medical University GMU-2017-005Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province 2017JJ3215
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe generalizability of the gestational weight gain (GWG) ranges recommended by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to Chinese women is disputed.

methodsIn 2016, 16,780 pregnant women who gave birth to live singletons in Changsha, China, were enrolled. First, subjects with optimal pregnancy outcomes were identified for the GWG percentile distribution description and for comparison to the IOM recommendations. Second, all subjects with optimal GWG according to the IOM body mass index (BMI) cutoffs and those with optimal GWG according to the Asian BMI cutoffs were selected. Pregnancy outcomes were compared between those two groups.

resultsA total of 13,717 births with optimal pregnancy outcomes were selected to describe the GWG distribution. The height and central position of the GWG distributions determined by the Asian BMI cutoffs differed from those determined by the IOM BMI cutoffs among the overweight and obese groups. The recommended IOM GWG ranges were narrower than and shifted to the left of the observed distributions. In both BMI classification schemes, however, the IOM-recommended ranges were within the middle 70% (Pc 15th-85th) and 50% (Pc 25th-75th) of the observed distribution. A total of 6438 (38.37%) and 6110 (36.41%) women gained optimal GWG, according to the IOM and Asian BMI classifications, respectively. Compared with those with optimal GWG according to IOM BMI cutoffs, women with optimal GWG according to the Asian BMI cutoffs had lower risks of both macrosomia (adjusted OR = 0.79, 95%CI: 0.67-0.94) and large-for-gestational age (adjusted OR = 0.86, 95%CI: 0.76, 0.98). However, no significantly different risks of preterm, low birthweight, small-for-gestational age, pregnancy-induced hypertension, or gestational diabetes were found between them.

conclusionsThe IOM-recommended GWG ranges are within the middle 70% of the distributions in Chinese women, and pre-pregnancy weight status should be determined by the Asian BMI cut-off points for monitoring and making GWG recommendations to Chinese women.

Indexed as

Gestational Weight GainAdolescentAdultBody Mass IndexChinaFemaleHumansObesityOverweightPractice Guidelines as TopicPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsPregnancy OutcomePrenatal CareRetrospective StudiesThinnessBody mass indexChinese womenGestational weight gainPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID29843642
PMCPMC5975263

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.