SynthesisJournal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association2026
Double Burden of Malnutrition Prevalence in Pregnant Women: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association, 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
Abstract
introductionThe coexistence of undernutrition and overweight, obesity, or diet-related noncommunicable diseases and micronutrient deficiency in pregnant women is defined by the WHO as a double burden of malnutrition (DBM). These coexistences are a critical aspect of maternal and antenatal care, especially in low- and middle-income countries.
objectiveTo estimate the global prevalence of DBM in pregnant women through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsThe systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA recommendations. Studies that reported prevalence measures of DBM in healthy pregnant women were included. DBM was considered as the coexistence of underweight with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), underweight with hypertension, overweight/obesity with anemia, overweight/obesity with vitamin D deficiency, overweight/obesity with vitamin B12 deficiency, and overweight/obesity with folate deficiency. The meta-analysis used a random-effects model with inverse-variance weighting. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute tools, and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework.
resultsThe systematic review included 62 articles totaling 1,386,245 pregnant women, at 8-42 gestational weeks and 13-45 years of age. The most common DBMs identified were overweight/obesity and vitamin D deficiency (21%; 95% CI: 14%-27%, n = 10 studies) and overweight/obesity and anemia (9%; 95% CI: 7%-10%, n = 18 studies). A meta-analysis of overweight/obesity and micronutrient deficiency was not conducted due to the small number of eligible studies. Most studies (66.3%) had high methodological quality; however, GRADE rated the overall certainty of evidence as low.
conclusionA high prevalence of overweight/obesity with vitamin D deficiency and anemia were observed. These results emphasize the need for stronger public policies to ensure equitable access to healthy diets, evidence-based supplementation, and continuous nutritional monitoring during pregnancy.
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.