2018
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13326
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of self‐reported and directly measured weight and height among women of reproductive age: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract: This review shows that self-reported weight and height of women of reproductive age differs slightly from direct measures. We consider that the magnitude at which self-reported data over- or underestimates the real value, is negligible regarding clinical and research use.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
48
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(50 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
(133 reference statements)
2
48
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Despite strengths, there are some limitations of our study. Self‐reported height and weight may have introduced misclassification bias; however, in women of reproductive age, self‐reported height and weight differs only slightly from direct measures and has been found to give valid estimates in research and for clinical use 28 . Data on height and weight were collected before the outcome GDM, and possible misclassification of BMI would therefore be independent of the outcome and non‐differential 29 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite strengths, there are some limitations of our study. Self‐reported height and weight may have introduced misclassification bias; however, in women of reproductive age, self‐reported height and weight differs only slightly from direct measures and has been found to give valid estimates in research and for clinical use 28 . Data on height and weight were collected before the outcome GDM, and possible misclassification of BMI would therefore be independent of the outcome and non‐differential 29 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Pre-pregnancy BMI was calculated from self-reported weight, which may be inaccurate however more likely to underestimate obesity in our sample and thus the overall effect. Furthermore, the magnitude of this reporting bias is likely to be negligible 40 . The definition of severe pre-eclampsia used in our study is as per the French national clinical guidelines at the time of protocol development, which have since changed 28 .…”
Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In study I, we used self-reported prepregnancy or measured early pregnancy BMI. Although previous studies have shown that self-reported BMI is reliable, (101,102) it may be a potential source of bias. The self-reported pre-pregnancy BMI or early pregnancy BMI employed in studies I-IV is preferred to maternal BMI based on weight at delivery.…”
Section: Methodological Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%