MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effectiveness of multimodal nutrition interventions during pregnancy to achieve 2009 Institute of Medicine gestational weight gain guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021· article· en· W6977132483 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSemantic Web and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeight gainPsychological interventionPregnancyOverweightSystematic reviewGestationMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2009, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a revision to its 1990 recommendations on gestational weight gain (GWG). The objective of this review is to update a previous systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of nutrition interventions in achieving recommended GWG. We conducted updated literature searches in MEDLINE® (2012 through 2019), Web of Science (2012 to 6 February 2017), Embase (2016 through 2019), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2012 through 2019). Literature published before January 2012 was identified from a published systematic review. We included controlled trials conducted in the U.S. or Canada among generally healthy pregnant women that compared nutrition interventions with or without exercise to controls (e.g., usual care) and reported total GWG or rate of GWG based on the 2009 IOM GWG guidelines. Two independent investigators conducted screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias (ROB) assessment. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted when data were sufficient. Eighteen unique studies were included, of which 11 were conducted in women with overweight or obesity. Nutrition interventions, compared to controls, had a similar effect on total GWG (mean difference = −1.24 kg; 95% CI [−2.65, 0.18]; I2=67.6%) but significantly decreased second and third trimester rate of GWG (−0.07 kg/week; 95% CI [−0.12, −0.03]; I2=54.7%). Nutrition interventions also reduced the risk of exceeding IOM’s rate of GWG targets (pooled RR = 0.71; 95% CI [0.55, 0.92]; I2=86.3%). Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in achieving IOM’s total GWG or any secondary outcome (e.g., preterm birth or small/large for gestational age) between groups. Most studies were assessed as having some or high ROB in at least two domains. Multimodal nutrition interventions designed to meet the 2009 IOM’s GWG targets may decrease the rate of GWG over the second and third trimesters but may not decrease total GWG.Key messagesExcessive gestational weight gain is associated with higher risk of many adverse maternal and fetal outcomes and represents a public health concern in the United States and Canada.Nutrition interventions designed to meet the 2009 IOM GWG guidelines may decrease the rates of GWG over the second and third trimesters but may not be effective at reducing total GWG. Excessive gestational weight gain is associated with higher risk of many adverse maternal and fetal outcomes and represents a public health concern in the United States and Canada. Nutrition interventions designed to meet the 2009 IOM GWG guidelines may decrease the rates of GWG over the second and third trimesters but may not be effective at reducing total GWG.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.044
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicSemantic Web and Ontologies→French-language works237,207→