Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35057562›Full record

ArticleNutrients2022

Modeling the Predictive Value of Evidence-Based Referral Criteria to Support Healthy Gestational Weight Gain among an Australian Pregnancy Cohort.

Shanna Fealy, Jenna Hollis, Julia Martin, Lucy Leigh, Christopher Oldmeadow, Clare E Collins, Roger Smith, Shelley Wilkinson, Alexis Hure

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

9 authors.

Shanna FealySchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4480-605X
Jenna HollisSchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.
Julia MartinSchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.
Lucy LeighHunter Medical Research Institute, Lot 1 Kookaburra Circuit, New Lambton Heights, NSW 2305, Australia.
Christopher OldmeadowHunter Medical Research Institute, Lot 1 Kookaburra Circuit, New Lambton Heights, NSW 2305, Australia.
Clare E CollinsHunter Medical Research Institute, Lot 1 Kookaburra Circuit, New Lambton Heights, NSW 2305, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3298-756X
Roger SmithSchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.
Shelley WilkinsonSchool of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, Faculty of Health and Behavioural Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD 4067, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3365-3473
Alexis HureSchool of Medicine and Public Health, College of Health and Wellbeing, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2225-0986

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Globally, there has been a renewed focus on addressing gestational weight gain (GWG). In Australia, the Department of Health pregnancy care guidelines recommend women be offered routine weighing and receive brief nutritional and physical activity support during antenatal care visits. Women gaining weight outside the Institute of Medicine (IOM)'s weight gain reference values are further recommended to be referred to a dietitian. However, professional and organizational barriers, including an absence of weight gain referral pathways and limited workforce resources, exist with the translation and scaling of these recommendations into practice. This study aimed to explore patterns of GWG among a cohort of Australian pregnant women and to determine if pregnancy weight gains of above or below 2 kg or 5 kg in the second and third trimester can be used to predict total GWG outside recommendations. Sensitivity, specificity, negative, and positive likelihood ratios were calculated. The most predictive time point was 24 weeks' gestation using the minimum weight change parameter of +/-2 kg, demonstrating reasonable sensitivity (0.81, 95% CI 0.61-0.83) and specificity (0.72, 95% CI 0.61-0.83), resulting in 55% (

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineGestational Weight GainReferral and ConsultationAustraliaBody Mass IndexCohort StudiesFemaleGestational AgeHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaternal Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaNutritionistsNutrition TherapyPregnancyPrenatal CarePrenatal Nutritional Physiological Phenomenaantenatal caredietitiangestational weight gainmaternal nutritionpregnancyreferral

Identifiers

PMID35057562
PMCPMC8779448

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.