↓ Skip to main content

Weighing as a stand-alone intervention does not reduce excessive gestational weight gain compared to routine antenatal care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Weighing as a stand-alone intervention does not reduce excessive gestational weight gain compared to routine antenatal care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12884-016-1207-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shanna M. Fealy, Rachael M. Taylor, Maralyn Foureur, John Attia, Lyn Ebert, Alessandra Bisquera, Alexis J. Hure

Abstract

Excessive gestational weight gain is associated with short and long-term adverse maternal and infant health outcomes, independent of pre-pregnancy body mass index. Weighing pregnant women as a stand-alone intervention during antenatal visits is suggested to reduce pregnancy weight gain. In the absence of effective interventions to reduce excessive gestational gain within the real world setting, this study aims to test if routine weighing as a stand-alone intervention can reduce total pregnancy weight gain and, in particular, excessive gestational weight gain. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted between November 2014 and January 2016, and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Seven databases were searched. A priori eligibility criteria were applied to published literature by at least two independent reviewers. Studies considered methodologically rigorous, as per the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Quality Criteria Checklist for Primary Research, were included. Meta-analysis was conducted using fixed-effects models. A total of 5223 (non-duplicated) records were screened, resulting in two RCTs that were pooled for meta-analysis (n = 1068 randomised participants; n = 538 intervention, n = 534 control). No difference in total weight gain per week was observed between intervention and control groups (weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.00 kg/week, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.03 to 0.02). There was also no reduction in excessive gestational weight gain between intervention and control, according to pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI). However, total weight gain was lower in underweight women (n = 23, BMI <18.5 kg/m(2)) in the intervention compared to control group (-0.12 kg/week, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.01). No significant differences were observed for other pregnancy, birth and infant outcomes. Weighing as a stand-alone intervention is not worse nor better at reducing excessive gestational weight gain than routine antenatal care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 106 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 15%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Researcher 8 8%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 35 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 19%
Psychology 5 5%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Arts and Humanities 4 4%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 39 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 July 2018.
All research outputs
#4,179,317
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#1,180
of 4,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,574
of 418,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
#28
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,217 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 418,156 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.