ArticleObstetrics & gynecology science2020
Gestational weight gain in twin pregnancies in Korea: application of the 2009 Institute of Medicine recommendations.
Article in Obstetrics & gynecology science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gestational weight gain and perinatal outcomes in twin pregnancies: evidence-based insights from a Chinese population cohort.Annals of medicine · 2026Observational
- Twin Birth Weight Chart Comparisons in Korea.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Placental Gene Expression in Women with Excessive Gestational Weight Gain.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Gestational weight gain adequacy among twin pregnancies in France.Maternal & child nutrition · 2023Article
- Association of Optimal Gestational Weight Gain Ranges With Perinatal Outcomes Across Body Mass Index Categories in Twin Pregnancies.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Maternal and neonatal outcomes in women with twin pregnancies based on gestational weight gain: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the effect of gestational weight gain (GWG) on maternal and neonatal outcomes based on the Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines for twin pregnancies.
methodsThis study included women with twin pregnancies who delivered at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. Based on the weight gain per gestational week according to the 2009 IOM guidelines, the subjects were divided into the following 3 groups: inadequate, adequate, and excessive GWG. We compared the maternal and neonatal outcomes of each group.
resultsA total of 1,738 twin pregnancies were included in our study. Of these cases, 881, 694, and 163 (50.7%, 39.9%, and 9.4%, respectively) twin pregnancies were categorized into the inadequate, adequate, and excessive GWG groups, respectively. In the inadequate GWG group, the risks of preterm birth <34 weeks (aOR, 2.33, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.63-3.34) and delivering neonates who were small for gestational age (aOR, 1.92, 95% CI, 1.42-2.60) were increased, and the risk of preeclampsia (aOR, 0.49, 95% CI, 0.32-0.76) was decreased. The excessive GWG group had an increased risk of the neonates being large for gestational age (aOR, 1.79, 95% CI, 1.15-2.81).
conclusionThe 2009 IOM recommendations for GWG can be applied to Korean women with twin pregnancies to help achieve optimal maternal and neonatal outcomes. However, more than half of the women were categorized as having inadequate weight gain according to the guidelines. Further studies should be performed to obtain Korean national references for GWG in twin pregnancies.
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.