Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29866719›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2018

Interpregnancy weight change and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Eugene Oteng-Ntim, Sofia Mononen, Olga Sawicki, Paul T Seed, Debra Bick, Lucilla Poston

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The impact of interpregnancy weight change on perinatal outcomes in women and their children: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2020
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eugene Oteng-NtimLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Sofia MononenDepartment of Women and Children's Health, King's College, London, UK.
Olga SawickiLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Paul T SeedDepartment of Women and Children's Health, King's College, London, UK.
Debra BickDepartment of Women and Children's Health, King's College, London, UK.
Lucilla PostonDepartment of Women and Children's Health, King's College, London, UK.
King's College London · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0407-10452
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the effect of interpregnancy body mass index (BMI) change on pregnancy outcomes, including large-for-gestational-age babies (LGA), small-for-gestational-age babies (SGA), macrosomia, gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and caesarean section (CS).

designSystematic review and meta-analysis of observational cohort studies. DATA SOURCES: Literature searches were performed across Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Global Health and MIDIRS databases. STUDY SELECTION: Observational cohort studies with participants parity from 0 to 1.

main outcome measuresAdjusted ORs (aORs) with 95% CIs were used to evaluate the association between interpregnancy BMI change on five outcomes.

results925 065 women with singleton births from parity 0 to 1 were included in the meta-analysis of 11 studies selected from 924 identified studies. A substantial increase in interpregnancy BMI (>3 BMI units) was associated with an increased risk of LGA (aOR 1.85, 95% CI 1.71 to 2.00, p<0.001), GDM (aOR 2.28, 95% CI 1.97 to 2.63, p<0.001), macrosomia (aOR 1.54, 95% CI 0.939 to 2.505) and CS (aOR 1.72, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.24, p<0.001) compared with the reference category, and a decreased risk of SGA (aOR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.99, p=0.044). An interpregnancy BMI decrease was associated with a decreased risk of LGA births (aOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.90, p<0.001) and GDM (aOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.03), and an increased risk of SGA (aOR 1.31, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.63, p=0.014). Women with a normal BMI (<25kg/m

conclusionsGaining weight between pregnancies increases risk of developing GDM, CS and LGA, and reduces risk of SGA in the subsequent pregnancy. Losing weight between pregnancies reduces risk of GDM and LGA and increases risk of SGA. Weight stability between first and second pregnancy is advised in order to reduce risk of adverse outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016041299.

Indexed as

Birth IntervalsBody Mass IndexCesarean SectionDiabetes, GestationalFemaleFetal MacrosomiaHumansInfant, Small for Gestational AgeObesityObservational Studies as TopicPregnancyPregnancy OutcomeWeight GainWeight Lossbmiinterpregnancymaternal medicine

Identifiers

PMID29866719
PMCPMC5988168
OpenAlexW2807091762

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.