ArticleScientific reports2024
Combined maternal central adiposity measures in relation to infant birth size.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Early Pregnancy Waist Circumference for Prediction of Fetal Macrosomia.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Improvement of prenatal identification of large-for-gestational-age (LGA) infants could lower the risk for adverse outcomes. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the association of a combination of maternal waist circumference (WC) and abdominal fat depths with infant birth size. A cohort study including 1240 women was performed between 2015 and 2018 at Uppsala University Hospital, Sweden. Maternal WC was measured at the first antenatal visit, and visceral (VF) and subcutaneous (SCF) fat depths by ultrasound at the second-trimester anomaly scan. Waist circumference, VF, and SCF were categorized as low or high (cut-offs WC ≥ 88 cm, VF ≥ 54 mm, SCF ≥ 21 mm). Outcomes were birth weight standard deviation score (BWSDS) and LGA (BWSDS > 90th and > 97th percentile). Secondary outcome was small-for-gestational-age (SGA, BWSDS < 10th and < 3rd percentile). Univariate analysis of variance and logistic regression analyses were performed adjusted for maternal weight, height, parity, smoking, country of birth, pregestational diabetes, and chronic hypertension. For both high and low WC, high VF was positively associated with BWSDS and LGA. There was no association with SGA. The results did not demonstrate any value of the combination of WC and fat depth measures in predicting infant birth size but suggested VF as a marker for large infants.
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.