Evidence mapPaperPMID 39227805Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2024

Predictors of inadequate gestational weight gain according to iom recommendations and intergrowth-21st standards: the araraquara cohort study.

Audêncio Victor, Laísla de França da Silva Teles, Leticia Falcão de Carvalho, Leonardo Domingos Biagio, Perla Pizzi Argentato, Liania A Luzia, Patrícia H C Rondó

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Audêncio VictorPublic Health Postgraduate Program, School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. audenciovictor@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8161-3639
Laísla de França da Silva TelesNutrition Department, School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Leticia Falcão de CarvalhoNutrition Department, School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Leonardo Domingos BiagioNutrition Department, School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Perla Pizzi ArgentatoNutrition Department, School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Liania A LuziaNutrition Department, School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Patrícia H C RondóPublic Health Postgraduate Program, School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGestational weight gain (GWG) is a critical factor for maternal and fetal health.

objectiveTo identify maternal predictors of inadequate GWG according to the 2009 Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations and Intergrowth-21st standards.

methodsA prospective epidemiological cohort study conducted from 2017 to 2023 in southeastern Brazil assessed 1,557 women at three different stages of pregnancy (≤ 18, 20-26, and 30-36 weeks of gestation) and at delivery. Sociodemographic, obstetric, lifestyle, nutritional, and maternal morbidity characteristics were collected, along with biochemical parameters.

resultsAmong the participants, 38.7% had GWG above IOM recommendations, while 67.5% had GWG above the Intergrowth-21st standards. Multinomial logistic regression analysis showed that women with pre-pregnancy obesity and women with the highest body fat percentage had, respectively, a 95% (OR = 1.95; 95% CI: 1.08-3.51) and 1% (OR = 1.01; 95% CI: 1.01-1.05) higher chance of GWG above IOM recommendations. Pregnant women in the lowest tertile of height, smokers, number of previous pregnancies, and women living in crowded homes had, respectively, a 57% (OR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41-0.80), 36% (OR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.37-0.86), 35% (OR = 0.65; 95% CI: 0.43-0.97), and 14% (OR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.59-0.86) lower chance of GWG above IOM recommendations. Women with diabetes were 2.53 times more likely (OR = 2.53; 95% CI: 1.32-4.83) to have GWG below IOM recommendations. Using the Intergrowth-21st standards, women with the highest body fat percentage had a 12% (OR = 1.12; 95% CI: 1.02-1.24) higher chance of GWG above the 90th percentile. Pregnant women in the lowest tertile of height were 2.82 times more likely (OR = 2.82; 95% CI: 1.08-8.13) and women with the lowest hemoglobin concentrations had a 41% lower chance (OR = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.39-0.88) of having GWG below the 10th percentile. While both guidelines identified body fat percentage and pre-pregnancy obesity as significant predictors of excessive GWG, the Intergrowth-21st standards captured a higher percentage of women exceeding GWG limits.

conclusionThe findings underscore the importance of comparing two instruments for assessing the adequacy of GWG. The IOM and Intergrowth-21st standards provide complementary insights, which can help implement targeted interventions for specific groups of women based on their nutritional and socioeconomic status, lifestyle, and obstetric factors to prevent pregnancy-related complications.

Indexed as

Gestational Weight GainNational Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, U.S., Health and Medicine DivisionAdultBody Mass IndexBrazilCohort StudiesFemaleHumansObesityPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsProspective StudiesUnited StatesYoung AdultCohort studyGestational weight gainIntergrowth-21st standardsIOM recommendationsPredictors

Identifiers

PMID39227805
PMCPMC11373346

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.