ArticlePloS one2024
Comparison of two proxies for the preconception weight using data from a pre-pregnancy cohort in Benin: Weight measured in the first trimester of pregnancy vs estimated by Thomas' formula.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- A randomized digital behavioral intervention for prenatal and postpartum weight outcomes in women with overweight or obesity: the GROWell trial.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Trial
- The Persistence of High Maternal Anaemia and Low Birthweight Despite Declining Malaria Transmission and Prevalence in Ghana.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate determination of pre-pregnancy weight is essential for optimal pregnancy monitoring and antenatal care. Determining pre-pregnancy weight in limited-resources settings is challenging for both clinical practice and public health research. From a 2014-2017 pre-pregnancy cohort in Benin, we evaluated the agreement between the measured pre-pregnancy weight (MPPW) and two proxies: (i) the first trimester pregnancy weight (FTPW) and (ii) the estimated pre-pregnancy weight (EPPW) using Thomas & al. formula. We analysed data from 302 pregnant women with both pre-pregnancy weight measured within 3 months before conception and weight measured during the first trimester. Using segmented linear regression, we first assessed up to which gestational age the weight measured during the first trimester could reasonably estimate the MPPW. Then the Bland & Altman method was used to assess agreement between MPPW and the two proxies. Additional analyses were performed to assess the sensitivity of results to the timing of measurement of either MPPW or the two proxies. On average, FTPW did not feature significant difference with MPPW up to 13.03 (11.99-14.06) weeks of gestational age. FTPW, measured on average at 7 ± 2.4 weeks of gestation, and the EPPW showed similar Bland & Altman limits of agreement with the MPPW. However, while the FTPW slightly underestimated the MPPW by a mean of-0.16 (-0.08; +0.39) kg, the EPPW overestimated it by a mean of + 0.43 (+0.20; +0.66) kg. Minor differences in these results were observed when the MPPW was assessed earlier or within three months before pregnancy, or according to the gestational age at the time of the proxy's measurement. In conclusion, in Southern Benin and up to 12-14 weeks of pregnancy, the FTPW appeared to be a good proxy of the MPPW while using Thomas' formula did not enhance pre-pregnancy weight estimation.
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.