Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40122541›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open2025

Predictors of inadequate and excessive gestational weight gain in women: a retrospective longitudinal observational study.

Sanjeeva Ranasinha, Joanne Enticott, Cheryce Harrison, Helena J Teede

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sanjeeva RanasinhaMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1323-4917
Joanne EnticottMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4480-5690
Cheryce HarrisonMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Helena J TeedeMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Helena.Teede@monash.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceMonitoring and predicting optimal gestational weight gain (GWG) is important for maternal and child health. However, with recommendations based on total pregnancy GWG, available tools for real-time use in pregnancy care are lacking. These tools are prioritised by the WHO to enable healthcare providers to identify, monitor and target lifestyle interventions for those at high risk of suboptimal GWG and subsequent adverse health outcomes for mothers and babies.

objectiveThis study aims to identify risk factors associated with GWG and to use these to develop an antenatal risk prediction tool for use during pregnancy to guide healthcare providers and women on optimal GWG, based on early pregnancy weight gain data.

designRoutine health data from the Australian Monash Health Network birthing outcome system were used to analyse GWG in women of different body mass index (BMI) categories. Using data from 10 to 15, 15-20 and 15-25 weeks of pregnancy, we predicted the probability of women gaining inadequate or excessive total GWG by term. We used multinomial logistic regression to investigate associations between US National Academy of Medicine (NAM) classifications (inadequate, sufficient and excessive GWG) and BMI, age, country of birth (COB) by region, parity, socioeconomic status and visit frequency.

settingWe used individual patient data routinely collected during care from one of the largest antenatal health networks in Australia.

participantsThe study included 17 397 women from 149 countries (based on the COB) of diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, with pregnancies between 2017 and 2021. EXPOSURE: Gestational weight gain.

resultsOverall, 31.5% gained below, 35.7% within and 32.8% above NAM GWG recommendations. Risk factors for excess GWG were higher BMI and maternal COB by region. Compared with the healthy BMI group, the overweight group has a 4.05 times higher adjusted relative risk of excess GWG (95% CI 3.37 to 4.80), and the obese group had a relative risk of 6.64 (95% CI 5.27 to 8.37). The risk prediction tool receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.81 for the 15-25 week, 0.80 for the 15-20 week and 0.69 for the 10-15 week GWG groups, with excellent performance in both discrimination and reliability. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: From a large population of women from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, we have identified risk factors for suboptimal GWG and developed and internally validated a risk prediction tool for attainment of recommended GWG from early pregnancy, with high performance. This tool is designed to enable clinicians to prospectively predict attainment of NAM GWG recommendations to guide risk stratification, monitoring and appropriate intervention for those at risk of suboptimal GWG.

Indexed as

Gestational Weight GainPregnancy ComplicationsAdultAustraliaBody Mass IndexFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsLongitudinal StudiesPregnancyPrenatal CareRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsYoung AdultEPIDEMIOLOGYGENERAL MEDICINE (see Internal Medicine)Health policyHospitalsPaediatric intensive & critical carePublic health

Identifiers

PMID40122541
PMCPMC11931920

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.