2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Suboptimal gestational weight gain and neonatal outcomes in low and middle income countries: individual participant data meta-analysis

      research-article
      1 , 2 , , 3 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 2 , 6 , 15 GWG Pooling Project Consortium, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
      The BMJ
      BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To estimate the associations between gestational weight gain (GWG) during pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in low and middle income countries.

          Design

          Individual participant data meta-analysis.

          Setting

          Prospective pregnancy studies from 24 low and middle income countries.

          Main outcome measures

          Nine neonatal outcomes related to timing (preterm birth) and anthropometry (weight, length, and head circumference) at birth, stillbirths, and neonatal death.

          Analysis methods

          A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science which identified 53 prospective pregnancy studies published after the year 2000 with data on GWG, timing and anthropometry at birth, and neonatal mortality. GWG adequacy was defined as the ratio of the observed maternal weight gain over the recommended weight gain based on the Institute of Medicine body mass index specific guidelines, which are derived from data in high income settings, and the INTERGROWTH-21st GWG standards. Study specific estimates, adjusted for confounders, were generated and then pooled using random effects meta-analysis models. Maternal age and body mass index before pregnancy were examined as potential modifiers of the associations between GWG adequacy and neonatal outcomes.

          Results

          Overall, 55% of participants had severely inadequate (<70%) or moderately inadequate (70% to <90%) GWG, 22% had adequate GWG (90-125%), and 23% had excessive GWG (≥125%). Severely inadequate GWG was associated with a higher risk of low birthweight (adjusted relative risk 1.62, 95% confidence interval 1.51 to 1.72; 48 studies, 93 337 participants; τ 2=0.006), small for gestational age (1.44, 1.36 to 1.54; 51 studies, 93 191 participants; τ 2=0.016), short for gestational age (1.47, 1.29 to 1.69; 40 studies, 83 827 participants; τ 2=0.074), and microcephaly (1.57, 1.31 to 1.88; 31 studies, 80 046 participants; τ 2=0.145) compared with adequate GWG. Excessive GWG was associated with a higher risk of preterm birth (1.22, 1.13 to 1.31; 48 studies, 103 762 participants; τ 2=0.008), large for gestational age (1.44, 1.33 to 1.57; 47 studies, 90 044 participants; τ 2=0.009), and macrosomia (1.52, 1.33 to 1.73; 29 studies, 68 138 participants; τ 2=0) compared with adequate GWG. The direction and magnitude of the associations between GWG adequacy and several neonatal outcomes were modified by maternal age and body mass index before pregnancy.

          Conclusions

          Inadequate and excessive GWG are associated with a higher risk of adverse neonatal outcomes across settings. Interventions to promote optimal GWG during pregnancy are likely to reduce the burden of adverse neonatal outcomes, however further research is needed to assess optimal ranges of GWG based on data from low and middle income countries.

          Related collections

          Most cited references112

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Global, regional, and national estimates of levels of preterm birth in 2014: a systematic review and modelling analysis

          Summary Background Preterm birth is the leading cause of death in children younger than 5 years worldwide. Although preterm survival rates have increased in high-income countries, preterm newborns still die because of a lack of adequate newborn care in many low-income and middle-income countries. We estimated global, regional, and national rates of preterm birth in 2014, with trends over time for some selected countries. Methods We systematically searched for data on preterm birth for 194 WHO Member States from 1990 to 2014 in databases of national civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS). We also searched for population-representative surveys and research studies for countries with no or limited CRVS data. For 38 countries with high-quality data for preterm births in 2014, data are reported directly. For countries with at least three data points between 1990 and 2014, we used a linear mixed regression model to estimate preterm birth rates. We also calculated regional and global estimates of preterm birth for 2014. Findings We identified 1241 data points across 107 countries. The estimated global preterm birth rate for 2014 was 10·6% (uncertainty interval 9·0–12·0), equating to an estimated 14·84 million (12·65 million–16·73 million) live preterm births in 2014. 12· 0 million (81·1%) of these preterm births occurred in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Regional preterm birth rates for 2014 ranged from 13·4% (6·3–30·9) in North Africa to 8·7% (6·3–13·3) in Europe. India, China, Nigeria, Bangladesh, and Indonesia accounted for 57·9 million (41×4%) of 139·9 million livebirths and 6·6 million (44×6%) of preterm births globally in 2014. Of the 38 countries with high-quality data, preterm birth rates have increased since 2000 in 26 countries and decreased in 12 countries. Globally, we estimated that the preterm birth rate was 9×8% (8×3–10×9) in 2000, and 10×6% (9×0–12×0) in 2014. Interpretation Preterm birth remains a crucial issue in child mortality and improving quality of maternal and newborn care. To better understand the epidemiology of preterm birth, the quality and volume of data needs to be improved, including standardisation of definitions, measurement, and reporting. Funding WHO and the March of Dimes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors.

            Previous work has identified 6 important areas to consider when evaluating validity and bias in studies of prognostic factors: participation, attrition, prognostic factor measurement, confounding measurement and account, outcome measurement, and analysis and reporting. This article describes the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool, which includes questions related to these areas that can inform judgments of risk of bias in prognostic research.A working group comprising epidemiologists, statisticians, and clinicians developed the tool as they considered prognosis studies of low back pain. Forty-three groups reviewing studies addressing prognosis in other topic areas used the tool and provided feedback. Most reviewers (74%) reported that reaching consensus on judgments was easy. Median completion time per study was 20 minutes; interrater agreement (κ statistic) reported by 9 review teams varied from 0.56 to 0.82 (median, 0.75). Some reviewers reported challenges making judgments across prompting items, which were addressed by providing comprehensive guidance and examples. The refined Quality In Prognosis Studies tool may be useful to assess the risk of bias in studies of prognostic factors.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              International standards for newborn weight, length, and head circumference by gestational age and sex: the Newborn Cross-Sectional Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project.

              In 2006, WHO published international growth standards for children younger than 5 years, which are now accepted worldwide. In the INTERGROWTH-21(st) Project, our aim was to complement them by developing international standards for fetuses, newborn infants, and the postnatal growth period of preterm infants. INTERGROWTH-21(st) is a population-based project that assessed fetal growth and newborn size in eight geographically defined urban populations. These groups were selected because most of the health and nutrition needs of mothers were met, adequate antenatal care was provided, and there were no major environmental constraints on growth. As part of the Newborn Cross-Sectional Study (NCSS), a component of INTERGROWTH-21(st) Project, we measured weight, length, and head circumference in all newborn infants, in addition to collecting data prospectively for pregnancy and the perinatal period. To construct the newborn standards, we selected all pregnancies in women meeting (in addition to the underlying population characteristics) strict individual eligibility criteria for a population at low risk of impaired fetal growth (labelled the NCSS prescriptive subpopulation). Women had a reliable ultrasound estimate of gestational age using crown-rump length before 14 weeks of gestation or biparietal diameter if antenatal care started between 14 weeks and 24 weeks or less of gestation. Newborn anthropometric measures were obtained within 12 h of birth by identically trained anthropometric teams using the same equipment at all sites. Fractional polynomials assuming a skewed t distribution were used to estimate the fitted centiles. We identified 20,486 (35%) eligible women from the 59,137 pregnant women enrolled in NCSS between May 14, 2009, and Aug 2, 2013. We calculated sex-specific observed and smoothed centiles for weight, length, and head circumference for gestational age at birth. The observed and smoothed centiles were almost identical. We present the 3rd, 10th, 50th, 90th, and 97th centile curves according to gestational age and sex. We have developed, for routine clinical practice, international anthropometric standards to assess newborn size that are intended to complement the WHO Child Growth Standards and allow comparisons across multiethnic populations. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: assistant professor
                Role: assistant professor
                Role: research associate
                Role: assistant professor
                Role: associate professor
                Role: executive
                Role: professor
                Role: distinguished professor emerita
                Role: professor
                Role: professor
                Role: director
                Role: consultant
                Role: professor
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2023
                21 September 2023
                : 382
                : e072249
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA
                [2 ]Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA
                [3 ]Department of Global and Community Health, College of Health and Human Services, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA
                [4 ]Institutional Centers for Clinical and Translational Research, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
                [5 ]Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
                [6 ]Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA
                [7 ]Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA
                [8 ]Nutrition & Clinical Services, International Centre for Diarrheal Disease Research, Dhaka, Bangladesh
                [9 ]Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
                [10 ]Department of Nutrition, University of California, Davis, CA, USA
                [11 ]Nutritional Epidemiology Observatory, Josué de Castro Nutrition Institute, Rio de Janeiro Federal University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
                [12 ]Nuffield Department of Women's & Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [13 ]DVPL Tech, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
                [14 ]Certara USA, on behalf of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA, USA
                [15 ]Department of Nutrition, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: N Perumal nperumal@ 123456mailbox.sc.edu
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3624-4405
                Article
                bmj-2022-072249.R2 pern072249
                10.1136/bmj-2022-072249
                10512803
                37734757
                42c60ac7-3188-48b1-a86f-daa41a5bcf19
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 08 August 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000865, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation;
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article