ArticleReproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2025
Early Pregnancy Waist Circumference for Prediction of Fetal Macrosomia.
Article in Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fetal macrosomia is associated with adverse short- and long-term outcomes for the mother and the child. Present models to predict fetal macrosomia cannot be used in all settings, and their precision could be improved. We assessed if waist circumference could replace or outperform weight for early pregnancy prediction of macrosomia. We included 5827 women in this population-based cohort study and assessed the influence of early pregnancy waist circumference and weight on the prediction of macrosomia with logistic regression analysis. We generated receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and calculated the area under the curve (AUC) to compare models, including waist circumference, weight, or neither of them. The odds of macrosomia increased with a larger waist circumference (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.03 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.02, 1.04)). For women with waist circumference between 80 and 88 cm the AOR was 1.41 (95% CI 1.09, 1.82) and women with waist circumference ≥ 88 cm had AOR 1.98 (95% CI 1.56, 2.53) for macrosomia. There was no difference in predictive capacity between waist circumference and weight in the macrosomia prediction model. The AUC was 0.75 (95% CI 0.72, 0.77) for waist circumference and 0.74 (95% CI 0.72, 0.77) for weight. The model that excluded waist circumference and weight had an AUC of 0.72 (95% CI 0.70, 0.75). The predictive capacity of the model including waist circumference was, however, higher than that of the model without waist circumference or weight (p < 0.001). In conclusion, waist circumference can replace weight in an early pregnancy macrosomia prediction model.
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.