ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2025
The effects of China-recommended gestational weight gain guidelines and the Institute of Medicine guidelines on adverse birth outcomes: A population- based cohort study.
Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to assess and compare the Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines and the recently published China guidelines regarding their applicability for gestational weight gain (GWG) management among Chinese pregnant women.
methodData were extracted from the Electronic Medical Record System of Zhoushan, China. Adverse outcomes include small for gestational age (SGA), large for gestational age (LGA), low birth weight and macrosomia. GWG were estimated by the China and IOM GWG guidelines, respectively. Multiple logistical regression models were used to analyze the associations of GWG with outcomes. The modified guidelines were developed.
resultsAmong 9975 pregnant women without comorbidities (i.e., gestational diabetes mellitus and pregnancy-induced hypertension), comparing women with normal GWG in both guideline, those with insufficient GWG in the IOM guidelines but normal GWG in the China guidelines were more likely to delivery infants with SGA (aOR = 1.38; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.79); while those with normal GWG in the IOM guidelines but excessive GWG in the China guidelines had an increased risk of LGA (aOR = 1.49; 95% CI: 1.12, 1.98) and macrosomia (aOR = 1.70; 95% CI: 1.11, 2.60). Similar results weren't observed among 4438 pregnant women with comorbidities. The modified guidelines were developed by combining the weekly GWG targets from the IOM (bottom values) and the China guidelines (upper values). The modified guidelines with Chinese BMI cut-off points exhibited the highest sensitivity for all adverse outcomes.
conclusionThe China guidelines would better recognize pregnant women at risk of LGA and macrosomia but overlook a subgroup of women at risk of SGA, as recognized by the IOM guidelines. These disparities emphasized neither guidelines may be entirely suitable for GWG management in China. The modified guideline would be more appropriate for Chinese pregnant women, but further validation through research is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40065104What 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.