Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31754167›Full record

Observational studyScientific reports2019

Application of Japanese guidelines for gestational weight gain to multiple pregnancy outcomes and its optimal range in 101,336 Japanese women.

Kyoko Nomura, Kengo Nagashima, Shunji Suzuki, Hiroaki Itoh

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Maternal Birth Weight FromJournal of pregnancy · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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.

Kyoko NomuraDepartment of Environmental Health Science and Public Health, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita City, 010-8543, Japan. knomura@med.akita-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1453-4540
Kengo NagashimaResearch Center for Medical and Health Data Science, The Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Tachikawa City, 190-0862, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4529-9045
Shunji SuzukiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Japanese Red Cross Katsushika Maternity Hospital, Katsushika Ku, 124-0012, Japan.
Hiroaki ItohDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu, 431-3192, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study was performed to investigate whether the Japanese guidelines for gestational weight gain (GWG) can be used to determine the risks of multiple pregnancy outcomes and estimate optimal GWG in 101,336 women with singleton pregnancies in 2013. Multivariable logistic regression analyses indicated that the risks associated with low birth weight, small for gestational age, and preterm birth increased significantly with weight gain below the Japanese guidelines, and the risks of macrosomia and large for gestational age increased with weight gain above the guidelines regardless of Asian-specific pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI). The GWG cutoff points estimated from the adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristics curve >0.6 corresponded to 10-13.8 kg in underweight women with pre-pregnancy BMI < 18.5 kg/m

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicPregnancy OutcomeAdultBirth WeightBody Mass IndexFemaleFetal MacrosomiaGestational AgeGestational Weight GainHumansIncidenceInfant, NewbornJapanMaternal AgeObstetricsPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID31754167
PMCPMC6872580

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.