Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36149650›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Analysis and Comparison of Early Childhood Nutritional Outcomes Among Offspring of Chinese Women Under the Chinese 2021 and US 2009 Gestational Weight Gain Guidelines.

Fangfang Chen, Peng Wang, Jing Wang, Zijun Liao, Xinnan Zong, Yiren Chen, Jianqiang Lai, Ting Zhang, Gongshu Liu, Xianghui Xie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Fangfang ChenCapital Institute of Pediatrics, Beijing, China.
Peng WangTianjin Women's and Children's Health Center, Tianjin, China.
Jing WangTianjin Women's and Children's Health Center, Tianjin, China.
Zijun LiaoCapital Institute of Pediatrics, Beijing, China.
Xinnan ZongCapital Institute of Pediatrics, Beijing, China.
Yiren ChenCapital Institute of Pediatrics, Beijing, China.
Jianqiang LaiNational Institute of Nutrition and Health, Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing, China.
Ting ZhangCapital Institute of Pediatrics, Beijing, China.
Gongshu LiuTianjin Women's and Children's Health Center, Tianjin, China.
Xianghui XieCapital Institute of Pediatrics, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: In 2009, the US National Academy of Medicine (NAM) released revised gestational weight gain (GWG) guidelines, which were established primarily for White North American women and may be unsuitable for Asian women. In 2021, the Chinese Nutrition Society (CNS) released its GWG guidelines, but their applicability requires re-examination. Objective: To compare the differences between the CNS and NAM recommendations for GWG in association with health outcomes in the offspring of Chinese women. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this bidirectional cohort study, children in China were recruited at age 3 years from 2017 to 2018, with 2 follow-up visits over the next 2 years (between September 2017 and September 2020). Information during pregnancy was retrieved from medical records. Data analysis was performed from October 2021 to January 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: GWG was classified as insufficient, appropriate, or excessive according to the CNS and NAM guidelines separately. Children's height, weight, fat mass, fat-free mass, and percentage of body fat were measured at each visit. Body mass index, fat mass index, fat-free mass index, weighted κ score, risk ratio values, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. Results: A total of 3822 children (1996 boys and 1826 girls; mean [SD] age, 3.79 [0.30] years) were enrolled; after exclusions, 3170 term singleton children were recruited and were followed at 4 and 5 years of age. According to the CNS guidelines, the prevalence rates were 14.1% for insufficient GWG, 48.1% for appropriate GWG, and 37.9% for excessive GWG, whereas the rates according to NAM guidelines were 39.7% for insufficient GWG, 37.2% for appropriate GWG, and 23.1% for excessive GWG. The weighted κ value for the classification agreement between the 2 guidelines was 0.530 (95% CI, 0.510-0.550). For the appropriate GWG group, the rates for low nutritional levels did not differ between the 2 guidelines, but the rates for high nutritional levels were significantly lower under CNS guidelines than under NAM guidelines. When the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV with respect to the mothers who maintained appropriate GWG were used to estimate the nonhigh nutritional status of their offspring, generally higher values based on the CNS guidelines were found compared with those based on the NAM recommendations. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the GWG recommendations promulgated by the NAM are higher than the CNS guidelines, with the latter more suitable for Chinese women.

Indexed as

Gestational Weight GainChildChild, PreschoolChinaCohort StudiesFemaleHumansOverweightPregnancyWeight Gain

Identifiers

PMID36149650
PMCPMC9508653

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.