ArticleMaternal & child nutrition2023
Gestational weight gain adequacy among twin pregnancies in France.
Article in Maternal & child nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of gestational weight gain on adverse birth outcomes in twin pregnancies: a prospective cohort study in Chinese women.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Article
- Gestational weight gain adequacy among twin pregnancies in France.Maternal & child nutrition · 2023Article
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
The objective of this paper is to describe gestational weight gain (GWG), to assess the applicability of the 2009 Institute of Medicine (IOM) guidelines, and to derive a GWG adequacy classification within a French cohort. We included twins from the national, prospective, population-based JUmeaux MODe d'Accouchement (JUMODA) cohort study (2014-2015). Following the IOM approach, we selected a 'standard' population of term pregnancies with 'optimal' birthweight (≥2500 g; n = 2562). GWG adequacy (insufficient; adequate; excessive) was defined using IOM recommendations (normal body mass index [BMI]: 16.8-24.5 kg [also utilized for underweight BMI]; overweight: 14.1-22.7 kg; obese: 11.4-19.1 kg). Additionally, using the IOM approach, we determined the 25th and 75th percentiles of GWG in our standard population to create a JUMODA-derived GWG adequacy classification. GWG and GWG adequacy were described, overall and by BMI and parity. In the JUMODA standard population of term twin livebirths with optimal birthweight, mean GWG was 16.1 kg (standard deviation 6.3). Using IOM recommendations, almost half (46.5%) of the women had insufficient and few (10.0%) had excessive GWG, with similar results regardless of BMI or parity. The 25th and 75th percentiles of GWG in the JUMODA standard population (underweight: 13-21 kg; normal weight: 13-20 kg; overweight: 11-19 kg; obese: 7-16 kg) were lower than the IOM recommendations. The IOM recommendations classified a relatively high percentage of French women as having insufficient and a low percentage as having excessive GWG. Additional research to evaluate recommendations in relation to adverse perinatal outcomes is needed to determine whether the IOM recommendations or the JUMODA-derived classification is more appropriate for French twin gestations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.