ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2026
Neonatal outcome in macrosomia and gestational diabetes mellitus depending on the definition of macrosomia: a retrospective cohort study.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGestational diabetes increases the risk of neonatal macrosomia, which is associated with maternal and neonatal morbidity. However, the definition of macrosomia is inconsistent and includes both a fixed weight limit and a gestational age-dependent percentile. This study aimed to evaluate the association between different definitions of macrosomia and short-term neonatal outcome in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this retrospective single-center cohort study, 882 women with gestational diabetes and a singleton pregnancy were included. Adverse neonatal outcome was defined as 5-min Apgar score below eight and/or admission to the neonatal intensive care unit. We compared three different definitions of macrosomia: 1.) birthweight ≥ 4000 g, 2.) birthweight > 90th percentile, and 3.) length-related birthweight > 90th percentile. Eutrophic newborns served as controls and small-for-gestational-age infants were excluded. Additionally, umbilical artery Doppler parameters were explored.
resultsOverall, 220 out of 882 newborns (24.9%) met at least one definition of macrosomia: 129 (14.6%) with birthweight ≥ 4000 g, 126 (14.3%) with birthweight > 90th percentile, and 205 (23.2%) with length-related birthweight > 90th percentile. Short-term adverse neonatal outcome occurred in 6.2% (n = 55). In the total cohort, macrosomia was not associated with adverse outcome. Newborns with a birthweight > 90th percentile showed a higher, but not statistically significant, rate of adverse outcome (odds ratio (OR) 1.5 [0.8-3.1], p = 0.231). In analyses restricted to macrosomic infants, those with birthweight > 90th percentile had higher rates of adverse outcome compared with those ≤ 90th percentile (8.7% vs. 1.1%; OR 8.9, 95% CI 1.1-70.2). This remained associated after adjustment for preterm birth (adjusted OR 8.8, 95% CI 1.1-71.4), although preterm birth was the strongest overall predictor. The effect was mainly observed in infants weighing < 4000 g. Umbilical artery Doppler showed limited predictive value.
conclusionsMacrosomia represents a heterogeneous group not uniformly associated with adverse short-term neonatal outcome. Within this cohort, birthweight > 90th percentile, particularly in infants < 4000 g, was associated with higher rates of adverse outcome, whereas fixed weight thresholds were not. Gestational age-adjusted definitions may better identify at-risk neonates.
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.