ArticleMaternal and child health journal2022
Associations of Gestational Weight Gain with Perinatal Outcomes in Western Brazilian Amazon.
Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between gestational age-specific weight gain in pregnancy and risk of adverse perinatal outcomes: a secondary analysis of the INTERBIO-21st Fetal Study.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2025Article
- The Impact of Excessive Gestational Weight Gain on Adverse Perinatal Outcomes: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Improved estimates of foetal growth are associated with perinatal outcomes: A latent modelling approach in a population-based birth cohort.Journal of global health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the association between gestational weight gain (GWG) and perinatal outcomes in pregnant Amazonian women.
methodsData from 1305 mother-child pairs from the MINA-Brazil population-based birth cohort study were used. GWG was classified according to two methods, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines and INTERGROWTH-21st standards. Poisson and linear regression analyses were conducted to evaluate associations with perinatal outcomes.
resultsFollowing IOM guidelines (n = 1305), the rates of insufficient and excessive GWG were found to be similar (32%). Excessive GWG was associated with higher new-born birthweight (BW) z-scores; increased risks of macrosomia, large for gestational age (LGA), and caesarean delivery; and lower risks of low birthweight (LBW) and being small for gestational age (SGA). Insufficient GWG was associated with lower new-born BW z-scores. Among women with normal pre-pregnancy body mass indices (BMIs, n = 658), inappropriate GWG was high following both methods (IOM: 41.2% insufficient, 24.8% excessive; INTERGROWTH-21st: 25.2% below - 1 z-score, 16.9% above 1 z-score). Both methods also indicated that new-borns of women with excessive GWG had higher BW z-scores and increased risk of macrosomia and LGA. Women with GWG below the INTERGROWTH-21st standards were more likely to deliver an infant SGA and with lower BW z-scores.
conclusionsInappropriate GWG remains a health concern irrespective of the method used to classify weight gain. GWG above the recommendations of both methods and below the INTERGROWTH-21st standard was associated with adverse perinatal outcomes. Therefore, INTERGROWTH-21st standards seem to be a better fit for healthy women in this population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35908240What 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.