Trial reportRevista de saude publica2026
Comparison of two methods for assessing weight gain in Brazilian pregnant women.
Trial report in Revista de saude publica, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare two methods for assessing gestational weight gain (GWG) among overweight adult pregnant women receiving care in Primary Health Care.
methodsThis is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled clinical trial conducted between 2018 and 2021 involving 260 overweight pregnant women receiving prenatal care at primary health care centers in the municipality of Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo. Participants were assigned to two groups: intervention (received individualized nutritional counseling- GI) or control (received only standard prenatal nutritional guidance-GC). Prenatal weight gain (PWG) was classified according to the U.S. guidelines of the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) and in accordance with Brazilian growth curve recommendations. To assess agreement between the methods, the kappa coefficient was used, and for the classification of weight gain (adequate, insufficient, or excessive), the criteria adopted by each method were used. Logistic regression models were employed to analyze the association between the groups (IG and GC) and the two methods used in the assessment of PWG.
resultsModerate agreement was observed between the methods, with a pattern of disagreement indicating possible underestimation of GPG by the NAM guidelines. Pregnant women in the GI had a higher likelihood of insufficient GPG according to the Brazilian method (OR = 2.87; 95%CI 0.88-9.25) and a lower likelihood of excessive weight gain according to the US method (OR = 0.63; 95%CI 0.34-1.17), compared to women in the GC, although neither finding was statistically significant.
conclusionThe Brazilian curves proved to be more appropriate for classifying GPG in overweight Brazilian pregnant women, better reflecting weight monitoring during prenatal care. Their adoption may facilitate the early identification of GPG inadequacies and, consequently, contribute to improving the quality of prenatal care.
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.