Conformity of pre-gestational weight measurement and agreement of anthropometric data reported by pregnant women and those recorded in prenatal cards, City of Rio de Janeiro, 2007-2008

Niquini, Roberta Pereira; Bittencourt, Sonia Azevedo; Leal, María do Carmo

doi:10.1590/s1415-790x2013000300011

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Length of recall ranged from 9.2 weeks post conception (53) to 32 years in the past (48). A total of 16 studies had short lengths of recall (within 20 weeks of conception; (19,38,39,43,53,(56)(57)(58)(59)(60)63,68,(82)(83)(84)(85)), five studies had medium lengths of recall (20 weeks after conception to 1 year post-pregnancy; (5,14,35,66,86)), and two studies had long lengths of recall (>1 year postpregnancy; (48,72)). Studies with short and medium length recalls had similar findings and are reported together here.…”

Section: Prepregnancy Weightmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, qualitative assessment suggested that risk of bias from use of self-reported prepregnancy weight was moderate to low, but varied by prepregnancy weight class (Table 4). Most studies (94%) reported correlation coefficients greater than 0.8 (14,19,35,38,39,48,53,58,60,63,66,68,72,(84)(85)(86), and magnitudes of error less than 2.27 kg (5 lb; 85.7%) suggesting a low risk of bias (5,14,19,35,38,39,43,48,53,56,58,63,68,72,82,(84)(85)(86). However, variability in mean difference was greater than 2.27 kg (5 lb) for 73.3% of studies (5,19,43,48,53,56,58,59,82,84,86), suggesting that while bias in associations between prepregnancy weight and outcomes was small on average, it could be large for...…”

Section: Implications For Birth Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prevalence of misclassification indicated that risk of bias could be substantial for categorical measures of prepregnancy weight. Risk of bias was moderate to high in most of the 13 studies that reported misclassification (Table 4; (5,14,19,39,56,57,59,66,72,82,83,86)). Furthermore, misclassification varied by prepregnancy weight class.…”

Section: Implications For Birth Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The accuracy of self‐reported pregnancy‐related weight: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-reported maternal weight is error-prone, and the context of pregnancy may impact error distributions. This systematic review summarizes error in self-reported weight across pregnancy and assesses implications for bias in associations between pregnancy-related weight and birth outcomes. We searched PubMed and Google Scholar through November 2015 for peer-reviewed articles reporting accuracy of self-reported, pregnancy-related weight at four time points: prepregnancy, delivery, over gestation and postpartum. Included studies compared maternal self-report to anthropometric measurement or medical report of weights. Sixty-two studies met inclusion criteria. We extracted data on magnitude of error and misclassification. We assessed impact of reporting error on bias in associations between pregnancy-related weight and birth outcomes. Women underreported prepregnancy (PPW: -2.94 to -0.29 kg) and delivery weight (DW: -1.28 to 0.07 kg), and over-reported gestational weight gain (GWG: 0.33 to 3 kg). Magnitude of error was small, ranged widely, and varied by prepregnancy weight class and race/ethnicity. Misclassification was moderate (PPW: 0-48.3%; DW: 39.0-49.0%; GWG: 16.7-59.1%), and overestimated some estimates of population prevalence. However, reporting error did not largely bias associations between pregnancy-related weight and birth outcomes. Although measured weight is preferable, self-report is a cost-effective and practical measurement approach. Future researchers should develop bias correction techniques for self-reported pregnancy-related weight.

show abstract

Section: Prepregnancy Weightmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implications For Birth Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implications For Birth Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The accuracy of self‐reported pregnancy‐related weight: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This makes it difficult to differentiate between an error in reporting pre-pregnancy weight and the possibility of weight gain during the first trimester. Three studies on this subject [12][13][14] have been conducted in Brazil. Oliveira et al [12] analyzed data from 30 women from Rio de Janeiro and compared self-reported weight and the weight measured in the first trimester registered in their pregnancy cards.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The authors concluded that these women underestimated their pre-pregnancy weight but, in general, the values were close to the measured weight. Niquini et al [13] evaluated 512 women who were also from Rio de Janeiro. They compared self-reported with measured first-trimester weight and concluded that women tended to underestimate their weight but the effect of this underestimation on BMI classification was limited.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agreement between self-reported pre-pregnancy weight and measured first-trimester weight in Brazilian women

Carrilho

Rasmussen

Farias

et al. 2020

BMC Pregnancy Childbirth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Self-reported pre-pregnancy weight and weight measured in the first trimester are both used to estimate pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) and gestational weight gain (GWG) but there is limited information on how they compare, especially in low- and middle-income countries, where access to a weight scale can be limited. Thus, the main goal of this study was to evaluate the agreement between self-reported pre-pregnancy weight and weight measured during the first trimester of pregnancy among Brazilian women so as to assess whether self-reported pre-pregnancy weight is reliable and can be used for calculation of BMI and GWG. Methods Data from the Brazilian Maternal and Child Nutrition Consortium (BMCNC, n = 5563) and the National Food and Nutritional Surveillance System (SISVAN, n = 393,095) were used to evaluate the agreement between self-reported pre-pregnancy weight and weights measured in three overlapping intervals (30–94, 30–60 and 30–45 days of pregnancy) and their impact in BMI classification. We calculated intraclass correlation and Lin’s concordance coefficients, constructed Bland and Altman plots, and determined Kappa coefficient for the categories of BMI. Results The mean of the differences between self-reported and measured weights was < 2 kg during the three intervals examined for BMCNC (1.42, 1.39 and 1.56 kg) and about 1 kg for SISVAN (1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 kg). Intraclass correlation and Lin’s coefficient were > 0.90 for both datasets in all time intervals. Bland and Altman plots showed that the majority of the difference laid in the ±2 kg interval and that the differences did not vary according to measured first-trimester BMI. Kappa coefficient values were > 0.80 for both datasets at all intervals. Using self-reported pre-pregnancy or measured weight would change, in total, the classification of BMI in 15.9, 13.5, and 12.2% of women in the BMCNC and 12.1, 10.7, and 10.2% in the SISVAN, at 30–94, 30–60 and 30–45 days, respectively. Conclusion In Brazil, self-reported pre-pregnancy weight can be used for calculation of BMI and GWG when an early measurement of weight during pregnancy is not available. These results are especially important in a country where the majority of woman do not initiate prenatal care early in pregnancy.

show abstract

Effect of excessive gestational weight gain before and after 28 weeks on trial of labor after cesarean stratified by pre-pregnancy body mass index: a retrospective cohort study

Liu,

Zhang,

Zhou

et al. 2023

Front. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to assess the effect of excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) before and after 28 weeks on the mode of delivery in women who attempted a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC), stratified by pre-pregnancy BMI. A retrospective analysis of the outcomes of eligible women who attempted trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) in a Chinese hospital from January 2016 to October 2022 was performed. GWG before and after 28 weeks was categorized as ‘excessive’ or ‘non-excessive’ based on the guideline of Institute of Medicine (IOM). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to estimate the effect of excessive GWG before and after 28 weeks on mode of delivery in women who underwent TOLAC, stratified by pre-pregnancy BMI. Of the 512 women who underwent term trial of labor, 71.1% achieved a vaginal birth. No correlation was found between excessive GWG before 28 weeks and the rate of vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Among women with or without excessive GWG before 28 weeks, excessive GWG after 28 weeks was significantly associated with a reduced rate of VBAC. When stratified by pre-pregnancy BMI, women who had excessive gestational weight gain after 28 weeks gestation had lower rates of VBAC than those who did not, regardless of being underweight, normal or overweight (aOR 0.23, 95% CI 0.06–0.88; aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.25, 0.70; and aOR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04–0.36; respectively). Excessive weight gain after 28 weeks of pregnancy was related to decreased rates of VBAC, irrespective of pre-pregnancy weight status and weight gain before 28 weeks.

show abstract

Conformity of pre-gestational weight measurement and agreement of anthropometric data reported by pregnant women and those recorded in prenatal cards, City of Rio de Janeiro, 2007-2008

Abstract: Studies may use weight and height information reported by pregnant women, in the absence of prenatal cards records, when it is an important economy to their execution, although the improvement of these two sources of information by means of better anthropometric process is necessary.

Cited by 3 publications

References 19 publications

The accuracy of self‐reported pregnancy‐related weight: a systematic review

The accuracy of self‐reported pregnancy‐related weight: a systematic review

Agreement between self-reported pre-pregnancy weight and measured first-trimester weight in Brazilian women

Effect of excessive gestational weight gain before and after 28 weeks on trial of labor after cesarean stratified by pre-pregnancy body mass index: a retrospective cohort study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About