ReviewFrontiers in pediatrics2021
Comparison of Three Gestational Weight Gain Guidelines Under Use in Latin America.
Review in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Energy intake and physical activity over the course of pregnancy and gestational weight gain: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of data from randomized controlled lifestyle intervention trials.Nutrition journal · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of two methods for assessing weight gain in Brazilian pregnant women.Revista de saude publica · 2026Trial
- Women's experience of body weight management during and post-pregnancy: a mixed methods approach.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Nutritional status and factors associated with gestational weight gain in the city of São Paulo, 2012 to 2020: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2024Article
- Maternal weight latent trajectories and associations with adverse pregnancy outcomes using a smoothing mixture model.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Analysis and Comparison of Early Childhood Nutritional Outcomes Among Offspring of Chinese Women Under the Chinese 2021 and US 2009 Gestational Weight Gain Guidelines.JAMA network open · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Presently, three guidelines are used in Latin America to assess adequacy of maternal body mass index (BMI) during pregnancy: (1) the chart proposed by the Institute of Medicine of the United States (IOM), (2) the Rosso-Mardones Chart (RM), and (3) a modified RM chart proposed by Atalah et al. (AEA). The aim of the present review was to explore available information on the sensitivity, specificity, and both positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) of these charts to detect women at risk of delivering babies with the following signs of abnormal fetal growth: (a) length at birth (BL) <50 cm; (b) birth weight (BW) <3,000 g; and (c) BW ≥ 4,000 or 4,250 g. Data from studies conducted in large samples of Chilean and Uruguayan women indicate that the RM chart has the greatest sensitivity to identify at risk cases. However, predictive values were similar for the three charts. Thus, the use of the RM chart should be preferred. The main limitation for using the IOM weight gain recommendations in Latin American women stems from the fact that their average height is approximately 20 cm lower than US women.
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.