ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes2026
Impact of Prenatal Nutrition Interventions on Infant Longitudinal Growth: A Secondary Analysis of the Mumta Pregnant Women Trial in Pakistan.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04012177 (Nutritional Support and Prophylaxis Doses of Azithromycin for Pregnant Women to Improve Birth Outcomes in the Peri-urban Slums of Karachi, Pakistan -a Randomized Controlled Trial), which is not on this 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.
Nutritional Support and Prophylaxis Doses of Azithromycin for Pregnant Women to Improve Birth Outcomes in the Peri-urban Slums of Karachi, Pakistan -a Randomized Controlled Trial
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effect of antenatal interventions on infant growth from birth till 12 months of age. Patients and Methods: In the Mumta Pregnant Women (PW) trial conducted from July 22, 2019, to February 1, 2022, PW were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to one of 4 groups: control (standard antenatal care), balanced energy protein supplementation (BEP alone), BEP/azithromycin (AZ), or BEP/nicotinamide/choline. Infant growth trajectories were modeled using the broken stick method and k-means clustering for weight-for-age (WAZ), length-for-age (LAZ), and weight-for-length z-scores. Random effect models assessed the impact of interventions and covariates (maternal age, height, parity, and mode of delivery) on growth outcomes. Results: From 1884 PW randomized, 1678 infants were born alive and included in this analysis (control n=410, BEP only n=418, BEP/AZ n=428, and BEP/choline/nicotinamide n=422). The mean growth trajectories revealed that the BEP/AZ arm had higher mean WAZ, LAZ, and weight-for-length scores compared with control. BEP/AZ arm had the highest proportion of infants in the thriving cluster across WAZ (control 34.4 % and BEP/AZ 35.5 %), and LAZ (control 31.7%, BEP/AZ 33.4%) measures. The odds of membership to the faltering cluster were reduced in the BEP/AZ arm based on WAZ (control 22.3%, BEP/AZ 15.7%), and LAZ measures (control 22.1%, BEP/AZ 17.7%) as compared with control. Across all measures, faltering was 4-fold higher in small-for-gestational-age infants and 2-fold higher among infants born to undernourished mothers. Conclusion: Antenatal interventions, such as BEP and prophylactic AZ, may have the potential to support and sustain infant growth outcomes in low-resource settings. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04012177.
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.