ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Investigation of optimal range of gestational weight gain for twin pregnancies according to Chinese specific body mass index categories.
Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is a lack of data on the optimal gestational weight gain (GWG) in twin pregnancies in China.
methodsA multicenter retrospective study was conducted, containing 1247 twin pregnancies in both North and South China. Optimal GWG was defined as the interquartile range of GWG across pre-pregnancy body mass index stratum among low-risk women. The composite outcome was defined as any occurrence of preterm delivery, small for gestational age, large for gestational age, and hypertensive disorders during pregnancy.
resultsThe study found that the optimal total gestational weight gain was 16-21.80 kg for underweight, 15.35-21.50 kg for normal weight, 12.10-20.25 kg for overweight, and 5.50-18.50 kg for obese subgroups. Corresponding gestational weight gain rates were 0.43-0.61 kg/week, 0.42-0.59 kg/week, 0.34-0.55 kg/week, and 0.15-0.51 kg/week. The proposed gestational weight gain ranges by our study were lower than the provisional Institute of Medicine (IOM) twin recommendation but higher than the Chinese Nutrition Society's singleton recommendation. Additionally, 46.11% of participants gained appropriate weight according to our suggestion, compared to 43.48% and 23.82% for the Institute of Medicine of twin guideline and the Chinese Nutrition Society's singleton recommendation, respectively. Furthermore, the association between the composite outcome with insufficient GWG defined by our suggestion was the strongest [adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval) = 1.74 (1.21-2.49)] among recommendations. Noteworthy, regional differences were observed. Southern Chinese women had a lower prevalence of adverse outcomes with proposed appropriate GWG ranges (80.78%) compared to the IOM twin guideline (82.04%). while northern women showed a slightly higher incidence of adverse outcomes under the proposed guidelines (65.67%) versus the IOM guideline (64.46%). Meanwhile, insufficient GWG was also more strongly linked to adverse outcomes in northern women (adjusted OR = 2.35) compared to southern women (adjusted OR = 1.15). These results indicating that northern women may need a higher optimal GWG threshold.
conclusionOur study emphasizes the necessity of establishing official gestational weight gain guideline for Chinese twin pregnancies, and regional-specific guidelines may need to be considered.
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.