APPENDIX E
Results from the Evidence-Based Report* on Outcomes of Maternal Weight Gain

The purpose of this systematic evidence-based review, requested by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and conducted by the RTI International—University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center (RTI-UNC EPC), was to review the evidence on outcomes of gestational weight gain with specific attention to five key questions:

  • KQ 1. What is the evidence that either total weight gain or rate of weight gain during pregnancy is associated with (1) birth outcomes, (2) infant health outcomes, and (3) maternal health outcomes? Does any evidence suggest that either total weight gain or rate of weight gain is a causal factor in infant or maternal health outcomes?

  • KQ 2. What are the confounders and effect modifiers for the association between gestational weight gain (overall and patterns) and birth outcomes? Based on the findings in KQ 1, do these confounders and effect modifiers themselves contribute to antepartum or postpartum complications or to longer-term maternal and fetal complications, including development of adult obesity?

  • KQ 3. What is the evidence that weight gains above or below thresholds defined in the 1990 IOM body mass index (BMI) guide-

*

Appendixes and evidence tables cited in this report are provided electronically at http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/admaternal/admaternalapp.pdf.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 389
appendix E Results from the Evidence-Based Report* on Outcomes of Maternal Weight Gain The purpose of this systematic evidence-based review, requested by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and conducted by the RTI International—University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center (RTI-UNC EPC), was to review the evi- dence on outcomes of gestational weight gain with specific attention to five key questions: • KQ 1. What is the evidence that either total weight gain or rate of weight gain during pregnancy is associated with (1) birth out- comes, (2) infant health outcomes, and (3) maternal health out- comes? Does any evidence suggest that either total weight gain or rate of weight gain is a causal factor in infant or maternal health outcomes? • KQ 2. What are the confounders and effect modifiers for the as- sociation between gestational weight gain (overall and patterns) and birth outcomes? Based on the findings in KQ 1, do these con- founders and effect modifiers themselves contribute to antepartum or postpartum complications or to longer-term maternal and fetal complications, including development of adult obesity? • KQ 3. What is the evidence that weight gains above or below thresholds defined in the 1990 IOM body mass index (BMI) guide- * Appendixes and evidence tables cited in this report are provided electronically at http:// www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/admaternal/admaternalapp.pdf. 

OCR for page 389
0 WEIGHT GAIN DURING PREGNANCY lines or weight loss in pregnancy contribute to antepartum or postpartum complications or longer-term maternal and fetal com- plications? How do these relationships vary by sociodemographic characteristics (i.e., race and age)? • KQ 4. What are the harms or benefits of offering the same weight gain recommendations to all pregnant women, irrespective of age and body weight considerations (e.g., pregravid weight, actual body weight at a particular time point, or optimal body weight)? • KQ 5. What are the anthropometric tools for determining adiposity and their appropriateness for the pregnancy state? What are the risks and benefits of measuring adiposity for (1) clinical manage- ment of weight gain during pregnancy and (2) evaluation of the relationship between weight gain and outcomes of pregnancy? The review focused on screening studies from 1990 to October 2007 that were published in English, and excluded studies with low sample size (case series < 100 and cohorts < 40) or failure to control for pregravid weight. In total, 150 studies were systematically reviewed and each was rated on quality and used to assess the strength of evidence for each out- come. The report, including appendices and evidence tables, can be ac- cessed and viewed in its entirety at http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/tp/admattp. htm. Literature published outside of the scope of the report (prior to 1990 and after October 2007) are reviewed in Appendix C of this report. The methods and results and of the evidence review (Chapter 3 of the report) are provided below. CHAPTER 2: METHODS In this chapter, we document the procedures that the RTI International- University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center (RTI-UNC EPC) used to develop this comprehensive evidence report on outcomes of maternal weight gain. The team was led by a senior health services researcher (Meera Viswanathan, PhD, Study Director), a senior epidemi- ologist (Anna Maria Siega-Riz, PhD, RD, Scientific Director), and a senior nurse-researcher (Merry-K Moos, FNP, MPH, co-Scientific Director). We first describe our strategy for identifying articles relevant to our five key questions (KQs), our inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the process we used to abstract relevant information from the eligible articles and generate our evidence tables. We also discuss our criteria for grading the quality of individual articles and for rating the strength of the evidence as a whole. Finally, we explain the peer-review process.

OCR for page 389
 APPENDIX E TABLE 1. Inclusion/exclusion Criteria for Gestational Weight Gain Category Criteria Study population Women of any age with singleton pregnancies Study settings KQ 1, KQ 2, KQ 4: Developed nations: United States, Canada, Western and geography Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand KQ 3: United States KQ 5: All countries Time period January 1990 through October 2007 Publication English only languages Admissible Admissible designs Controlled trials (n ≥ 40), nonrandomized controlled trials (n ≥ 40), evidence (study design and other systematic reviews, meta-analyses, prospective trials with historical controls (n ≥ 40), prospective or retrospective observational cohort criteria) studies (n ≥ 40), and medium to large case series (n ≥ 100) Other criteria Original research studies must provide sufficient detail regarding methods and results to enable use and adjustment of the data and results. Relevant outcomes must be abstractable from data presented in the papers. Sample sizes must be appropriate for the study question addressed in the paper; single case reports or small case series (fewer than 100 subjects) are excluded. For KQ 1, 2, 3, and 4: prepregnancy body mass index (BMI) or weight must be accounted for in the relationship between maternal weight gain and outcome. Studies limited to women with preexisting health conditions only are excluded. Literature Review Methods Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Our inclusion and exclusion criteria are documented in Table 1. As noted in Chapter 1, this systematic review focuses on outcomes of maternal weight gain with respect to the 1990 recommendations from the Institute of Medicine (IOM). Largely for that reason, we limited our searches to articles published in 1990 and thereafter. We also restricted our searches to developed countries so that we could have data generally relevant for maternal weight gain and health outcomes in the United States. We excluded studies that (1) were published in languages other than English (given the available time and resources); (2) did not report informa- tion pertinent to the key clinical questions; (3) had fewer than 40 subjects

OCR for page 389
 WEIGHT GAIN DURING PREGNANCY for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized cohorts with comparisons or fewer than 100 subjects for case series; and (4) were not original studies. For KQ 1, 2, 3, and 4, we required that the reported association be- tween maternal weight gain and health outcomes accounted for prepreg- nancy body mass index (BMI) or weight, either through stratified univariate analysis or multivariate analysis. Literature Search and Retrieal Process Databases We used multifaceted search strategies to include current and valid research on the KQs, which we applied to four standard electronic databases—MEDLINE®, Cochrane Collaboration resources, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Embase. We also hand-searched the reference lists of relevant articles to make sure that we did not miss any relevant studies. We consulted with our Technical Expert Panel (TEP) about any studies or trials that are currently under way or that may not yet be published. Search terms. Based on the inclusion/exclusion criteria above, we gener- ated a list of Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) search terms (Table 2 and Appendix A*). Our TEP also reviewed these terms to ensure that we were not missing any critical areas, and this list represents our collective deci- sions as to the MeSH terms used for all searches. TABLE 2. MEDLINE® Search Strategy and Unduplicated Results for February 2007 Search Terms Search Results #2 Search “Weight Gain”[MeSH] 13,220 #5 Search pregnancy [MeSH] 577,647 #6 Search #2 AND #5 1,808 #7 Search gestational weight gain 1,725 #8 Search #6 OR #7 3,023 #9 Search #6 OR #7 Limits: English, Humans 1,696 #15 Search (“Outcome Assessment (Health Care)”[MeSH] OR “Outcome 332,914 and Process Assessment (Health Care)”[MeSH] OR “Pregnancy Outcome”[MeSH]) OR “Reproductive History”[MeSH] OR “birth outcomes” OR “infant health outcomes” OR “maternal health outcomes” Limits: English, Humans #16 Search #9 AND #15 Limits: English, Humans 474 #19 Search (“Counseling”[MeSH] OR “Directive Counseling”[MeSH]) 23,091 #20 Search #9 AND #19 12 #25 Search “Body Weights and Measures”[MeSH] 279,399 #26 Search #9 AND #25 1,044 #29 Search “Anthropometry”[MeSH] 71,849 #30 Search #26 AND #29 359

OCR for page 389
 APPENDIX E Our searches in MEDLINE® produced 715 unduplicated records. Searches in other databases yielded in 190 new records from CINAHL and 4 from Embase. Similar searches in Cochrane did not produce any new ci- tations. Following an update on October 3, 2007, and additional searches for KQ 5, we ultimately identified 1,082 unduplicated records. In addition, peer reviews suggested 3 new citations that met our inclusion criteria. Figure 1 presents the yield and results from our searches, which we conducted from February through October 3, 2007. Beginning with a yield FIGURE 1. Disposition of articles for gestational weight gain. APP E Fig 2 CD only entire image, including type, is bitmapped

OCR for page 389
 WEIGHT GAIN DURING PREGNANCY of 1,085 articles, we retained 150 articles that we determined were relevant to address our KQs and met our inclusion/exclusion criteria (Table 1). We reviewed titles and abstracts of the articles against the basic inclusion criteria above; we retained relevant articles, all published after our search cutoff date of January 1990, and used them as appropriate in the discus- sion in Chapter 4. Article selection process Once we had identified articles through the elec- tronic database searches, review articles, and reference lists, we examined abstracts of articles to determine whether studies met our criteria. Each abstract was independently, dually reviewed for inclusion or exclusion, us- ing an Abstract Review Form (Appendix B). If one reviewer concluded that the article should be included in the review, we retained it. Of this entire group of 1,085 articles, 479 required full review. For the full article review, one team member read each article and decided whether it met our inclusion criteria, using a Full Text Inclusion/Exclusion Form (Appendix B*). Reasons for article exclusion are listed in Appendix D. Literature Synthesis Deelopment of Eidence Tables and Data Abstraction Process The senior staff who conducted this systematic review jointly developed the evidence tables. We designed the tables to provide sufficient information to enable readers to understand the studies and to determine their quality; we gave particular emphasis to essential information related to our KQs. We based the format of our evidence tables on successful designs that we have used for prior systematic reviews. We trained abstractors by having them abstract several articles into evidence tables and then reconvening as a group to discuss the utility of the table design. The abstractors repeated this process through several itera- tions until they decided that the tables included the appropriate categories for gathering the information contained in the articles. Three junior epidemiologists (Sunni Mumford, SM; Andrea Deierlein, MS, MPH; and Julie K. Knaack, MPH, RD, LDN) shared the task of ini- tially entering information into the evidence tables. Senior staff reviewed the articles and edited all initial table entries for accuracy, completeness, and consistency. Abstractors reconciled all disagreements concerning the information reported in the evidence tables. The full research team met regularly during the article abstraction period and discussed global issues related to the data abstraction process. The final evidence tables are presented in their entirety in Appendix C. Studies are presented in the evidence tables alphabetically by the last name

OCR for page 389
 APPENDIX E of the first author. A list of abbreviations and acronyms used in the tables appears at the beginning of that appendix. Quality Rating of Indiidual Studies The evidence for this systematic review is based almost entirely on observational studies. This fact presents a challenge for rating individual studies. Quality rating forms for RCTs have been validated and in use for several years; a similarly well-validated form for observational studies does not exist. Thus, as a parallel effort, we developed a form to rate observational studies.35 This form, which can be used to rate the quality of a variety of observational studies, was based on a review of more than 90 AHRQ systematic reviews that included observational studies; we supplemented this review with other key articles identifying domains and scales.36,37 We structured the resultant form largely on the basis of the domains and sub- domains suggested by Deeks and colleagues;36 we then adapted it for use in this systematic review (Appendix B*). The form currently includes review of nine key domains: background, sample selection, specification of exposure, specification of outcome, sound- ness of information, followup, analysis comparability, analysis of outcome, and interpretation. Each of these domains was further evaluated on aspects of quality of the study design or reporting that would influence the reader’s perception of internal validity of the journal article (Table 3). We note that variations in reporting could result in different scores for studies drawing from the same sample. As described in Table 3, we combined these elements to generate overall scores. We set the default as fair and then focused on the threshold required for good and poor studies; the algorithm is also described in Table 3. Fair studies, therefore, include studies that were predominantly fair (four to nine fair ratings on domains) and could not be rated either good (fewer than five good ratings for subdomains) or poor (fewer than three poor ratings for subdomains). Studies with more than five good ratings for domains that also received one or two poor ratings were downgraded to fair quality. Key methodological concerns in this literature relate to the source of information on weight gain and the timing of measurement of weight gain. Studies that relied solely on self-reported pregravid and final pregnancy weights suffer from well-documented issues of recall bias. In addition, women tend to misreport their weight, and this bias varies by weight status38 and ethnicity.39 The timing of weight measurement (for pregravid weight and final weight) can vary depending on the design of the study; when unreported, the total weight gain during pregnancy cannot be as- sumed to be collected at similar time points for all women within the study,

OCR for page 389
 WEIGHT GAIN DURING PREGNANCY TABLE 3. Scoring Algorithm for Subdomains and Overall Quality Rating for Individual Studies Definition and Scoring Algorithm Rating Score algorithm for background (presented in the context of previous research, hypothesis clearly described) • Both elements present Good • Neither present Poor • One of two elements present Fair Score algorithm for sample definition (explicitly stated inclusion/exclusion criteria, uniform application of criteria, clear description of recruitment strategy, clear description of characteristics of the participants, power analysis or some other basis noted for determining the adequacy of study sample size) • > Three elements present Good • < Two elements present Poor • Two or three elements present Fair Score algorithm for exposure (clear definition of weight gain, check for plausibility of pregravid weight, clear explanation of actions taken on outliers) • All three elements present or clearly defined Good • Poor definition of weight gain Poor • Moderate or very clear definition of weight gain, one or more other elements Fair present Score algorithm for outcome (clear description of primary outcomes) • All essential details described Good • Few or no essential details described Poor • Some essential details described Fair Score algorithm for soundness of information (quality of source of information on exposure, confounders, and outcome) • Good for all three Good • Poor on source of information for exposure Poor • Any other score Fair Score algorithm for followup (adequate reporting of reasons for loss to followup) • Retrospective or prospective study with clear reporting on loss to followup Good • Prospective study, no reporting on followup Poor • Retrospective study with no reporting on loss to followup Fair Score algorithm for analysis comparability (comparability of cohorts through design, reasonable choice of control variables, clear description of confounders, adequate adjustment for confounders) • All elements present Good • Inadequate adjustment for confounding Poor • Any other score Fair Score algorithm for analysis outcome (withdrawals, lost to followup, and missing data adequately accounted for in the analysis, and appropriate statistical methods used)

OCR for page 389
 APPENDIX E TABLE 3. Continued Definition and Scoring Algorithm Rating • Both elements clearly present Good • Neither element present Poor • Any other score Fair Score algorithm for interpretation (results interpreted appropriately based on study design and statistics, clinically useful, appropriate presentation, presented in the context of prior research, and conclusion supported by results) • All elements clearly present Good • Conclusions not supported by results Poor • Any other score Fair Score algorithm for overall quality • 5 or more good ratings and no poor ratings on subdomains Good • 3 or more poor ratings on subdomains Poor • < 5 good ratings and < 3 poor ratings on subdomains; 5 or more good ratings Fair and any poor ratings resulting in further bias. Our rating algorithm, therefore, paid special at- tention to the source of data on gestational weight gain and the timing of measurement. Studies that relied solely on recalled prepregnancy and total pregnancy weight were rated poor on that domain, but if they defined their gestational weight variable clearly (providing details on the timing of mea- surement for pregravid and final weight measurements) and either checked for the biological plausibility of pregravid weight status or explained how outliers were dealt with, they could receive an overall fair rating (assuming that they received fewer than three poor ratings overall). Strength of Aailable Eidence Our scheme follows the criteria applied in an earlier RTI-UNC EPC systematic review of systems for rating the strength of a body of evidence.40 That system has three domains: quality of the research (as evaluated by the quality rating algorithm described above), quantity of studies (including number of studies and adequacy of the sample size), and consistency of findings. Two senior staff members assigned grades by consensus. We graded the body of literature for each KQ and present those ratings as part of the discussion in Chapter 4. The possible grades in our scheme are as follows: I. Strong: The evidence is from studies of sound design (good quality); results are both clinically important and consistent with minor exceptions at most; results are free from serious doubts about generalizability, bias, or

OCR for page 389
 WEIGHT GAIN DURING PREGNANCY flaws in research design. Studies with negative results have sufficiently large samples to have adequate statistical power. II. Moderate: The evidence is from studies of sound design (good qual- ity), but some uncertainty remains because of inconsistencies or concern about generalizability, bias, research design flaws, or adequate sample size. Alternatively, the evidence is consistent but derives from studies of weaker design (fair quality). III. Weak: The evidence is from a limited number of studies of weaker design (fair or poor quality). Studies with strong design (good quality) ei- ther have not been done or are inconclusive. IV. No evidence: No published literature. External Peer Review As is customary for all evidence reports and systematic reviews done for AHRQ, the RTI-UNC EPC requested review of this report from a wide array of individual outside experts in the field, including our TEP, and from relevant professional societies and public organizations. AHRQ also requested review from its own staff. We sent 20 invitations for peer review: 6 TEP members, 6 relevant organizations, and 8 individual experts. Reviewers included clinicians (e.g., obstetrics and gynecology, women’s health/general health), representatives of federal agencies, advocacy groups, and potential users of the report. We charged peer reviewers with commenting on the content, structure, and format of the evidence report, providing additional relevant citations, and pointing out issues related to how we had conceptualized and defined the topic and KQs. We also asked them to complete a peer review checklist. We received comments from 11 of the invited peer reviewers in addition to comments from AHRQ staff. The individuals listed in Appendix E** gave us permission to acknowledge their review of the draft. We compiled all comments and addressed each one individually, revising the text as appropriate. CHAPTER 3: RESULTS This chapter presents the results of our evidence review for the follow- ing four key questions (KQs): KQ 1, outcomes of gestational weight gain; KQ 3, outcomes of gestational weight gain within or outside the recom- mendations of the Institute of Medicine (IOM); and KQ 5, anthropometrics of gestational weight gain. We note that KQ 2, on modifiers of outcomes, is derivative of KQ 1. KQ 4, on recommendations for weight gain, is derivative of KQ 3. Because we framed KQ 2 and KQ4 as synthesis questions, we cover them in Chap- ter 4.

OCR for page 389
 APPENDIX E Appendix C provides the detailed evidence tables for KQs 1, 3, and 5. Our summary tables below feature groups of studies addressing each out- come; we present these text tables only when we have three or more studies pertaining to that particular outcome. These tables are organized by quality (good, then fair, then poor), and then alphabetically. The summary tables generally provide information to identify the study (author and date), sample size, study quality, definition of gestational weight gain, definition of outcome, results, and confounders and effect modifiers. Unless otherwise noted, we use the metrics (e.g., grams, kilograms, pounds) that each study article used; we did not recalculate measures into the same metric. KQ 1: Outcomes of Gestational Weight Gain We present outcomes in the physiological order, beginning with mater- nal antepartum and intrapartum outcomes, then birth outcomes (neonatal outcomes at the time of birth), infant outcomes (< 1 year), child outcomes (≥ 1 year), and finally maternal short- and long-term outcomes. Evidence Tables 1-35 (Appendix C) include studies relevant for KQ 1, listed alpha- betically by author. For each outcome, we describe study characteristics and then report an overview of results, followed by detailed results. When meaningful, we present results separately for varied measures of gestational weight gain (categorical measures of weight gain, rate of weight gain, total weight gain, and other). For some bodies of evidence, variations in the definition of the outcome and inconsistencies in the direction of effect may suggest that an overall assessment of the effect is more meaningful than separate assessments of outcomes associated with each measure of gesta- tional weight gain. Summary tables and text include information on the confounders and effect modifiers accounted for in each study. Maternal Antepartum Outcomes Maternal discomforts of pregnancy Study characteristics Five studies (Evidence Table 1) investigated the relationship between weight gain and diverse maternal discomforts of preg- nancy: a composite of pregnancy discomforts,41 physical energy and fa- tigue,42 stretch marks,43,44 and heartburn.45 Oeriew of results Two fair41,42 and three poor studies43-45 found no differences for women who gained an excessive amount of weight compared to those who did not, irrespective of body mass index (BMI) group,42 a higher frequency of symptoms from midpregnancy through the 36th week of gestation,46 no association between gestational weight gain

OCR for page 389
0 WEIGHT GAIN DURING PREGNANCY 25. SR Devader, HL Neeley, TD Myles, and TL Leet. Evaluation of gestational weight gain guidelines for women with normal prepregnancy body mass index Obstet Gynecol 2007. Oct. 110: (4) 745-51. (PubMed) 26. NE Stotland, JS Haas, P Brawarsky, RA Jackson, E Fuentes-Afflick, and GJ Escobar. Body mass index, provider advice, and target gestational weight gain Obstet Gynecol 2005. Mar. 105: (3) 633-8. (PubMed) 27. CM Olson and MS Strawderman. Modifiable behavioral factors in a biopsychosocial model predict inadequate and excessive gestational weight gain J Am Diet Assoc 2003. Jan. 103: (1) 48-54. (PubMed) 28. ME Cogswell, KS Scanlon, SB Fein, and LA Schieve. Medically advised, mother’s personal target, and actual weight gain during pregnancy Obstet Gynecol 1999. Oct. 94: (4) 616- 22. (PubMed) 29. SM Taffel, KG Keppel, and GK Jones. Medical advice on maternal weight gain and actual weight gain. Results from the 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health Survey Ann N Y Acad Sci 1993. Mar 15. 678: 293-305. (PubMed) 30. P Brawarsky, NE Stotland, RA Jackson, E Fuentes-Afflick, GJ Escobar, and N Rubashkin, et al. Pre-pregnancy and pregnancy-related factors and the risk of excessive or inadequate gestational weight gain Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005. Nov. 91: (2) 125-31. (PubMed) 31. CA Hickey, SP Cliver, RL Goldenberg, SF McNeal, and HJ Hoffman. Relationship of psychosocial status to low prenatal weight gain among nonobese black and white women delivering at term Obstet Gynecol 1995. Aug. 86: (2) 177-83. (PubMed) 32. CA Hickey. Sociocultural and behavioral influences on weight gain during pregnancy Am J Clin Nutr 2000. May. 71: (5 Suppl) 1364S-70S. (PubMed) 33. LO Walker and M Kim. Psychosocial thriving during late pregnancy: relationship to eth- nicity, gestational weight gain, and birth weight J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2002. May-Jun. 31: (3) 263-74. 34. King JC. Maternal obesity, glucose intolerance, and inflammation in pregnancy. In: Packer L, Sies H, eds. Oxidative Stress and Inflammatory Mechanisms in Obesity, Dia- betes, and the Metabolic Syndrome : Taylor & Francis CRC Press 2007:90-106. 35. Berkman N, Viswanathan M. Model Form for the Evaluation of Observational Studies Included in Systematic Literature Reviews. Durham, NC: RTI International 2007. 36. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D’Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, et al. Evaluat- ing non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:iii-x. [PMID: 14499048]. 37. SH Downs and N Black. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions J Epidemiol Community Health 1998. 52: 377-84. (PubMed) (Full Text in PMC) 38. LR Brunner Huber. Validity of self-reported height and weight in women of reproductive age Matern Child Health J 2007. 11: 137-44. (PubMed) 39. RF Gillum and CT Sempos. Ethnic variation in validity of classification of overweight and obesity using self-reported weight and height in American women and men: the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey Nutr J 2005. 4: 27. (PubMed) (Full Text in PMC) 40. West SL, King V, Carey TS, McKoy JN, Lohr K, Sutton SF, et al. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evidence Report, Technology Assessment No. 47. Rock- ville, Md.: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. AHRQ Publication No. 02-E016 2002. 41. A Rodriguez, G Bohlin, and G Lindmark. Symptoms across pregnancy in relation to psy- chosocial and biomedical factors Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2001. Mar. 80: (3) 213-23. (PubMed)

OCR for page 389
 APPENDIX E 42. L Tulman, KH Morin, and J Fawcett. Prepregnant weight and weight gain during pregnancy: relationship to functional status, symptoms, and energy J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 1998. Nov-Dec. 27: (6) 629-34. 43. DJ Madlon-Kay. Striae gravidarum. Folklore and fact Arch Fam Med 1993. May. 2: (5) 507-11. (PubMed) 44. GS Atwal, LK Manku, CE Griffiths, and DW Polson. Striae gravidarum in primiparae Br J Dermatol 2006. Nov. 155: (5) 965-9. (PubMed) 45. JM Marrero, PM Goggin, JS de Caestecker, JM Pearce, and JD Maxwell. Determinants of pregnancy heartburn Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992. Sep. 99: (9) 731-4. (PubMed) 46. H Vallianatos, EA Brennand, K Raine, Q Stephen, B Petawabano, and D Dannenbaum, et al. Beliefs and practices of First Nation women about weight gain during pregnancy and lactation: implications for women’s health Can J Nurs Res 2006. Mar. 38: (1) 102- 19. (PubMed) 47. L Dodds, DB Fell, KS Joseph, VM Allen, and B Butler. Outcomes of pregnancies com- plicated by hyperemesis gravidarum Obstet Gynecol 2006. Feb. 107: (2 Pt 1) 285-92. (PubMed) 48. EC Kieffer, BP Tabaei, WJ Carman, GH Nolan, JR Guzman, and WH Herman. The influ- ence of maternal weight and glucose tolerance on infant birthweight in Latino mother- infant pairs Am J Public Health 2006. Dec. 96: (12) 2201-8. (PubMed) 49. EA Brennand, D Dannenbaum, and ND Willows. Pregnancy outcomes of First Nations women in relation to pregravid weight and pregnancy weight gain J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2005. Oct. 27: (10) 936-44. (PubMed) 50. G Seghieri, A De Bellis, R Anichini, L Alviggi, F Franconi, and MC Breschi. Does parity increase insulin resistance during pregnancy? Diabet Med 2005. Nov. 22: (11) 1574-80. (PubMed) 51. W Kabiru and BD Raynor. Obstetric outcomes associated with increase in BMI category during pregnancy Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004. Sep. 191: (3) 928-32. (PubMed) 52. M Murakami, M Ohmichi, T Takahashi, A Shibata, A Fukao, and N Morisaki, et al. Prepregnancy body mass index as an important predictor of perinatal outcomes in Japa- nese Arch Gynecol Obstet 2005. Apr. 271: (4) 311-5. (PubMed) 53. I Thorsdottir, JE Torfadottir, BE Birgisdottir, and RT Geirsson. Weight gain in women of normal weight before pregnancy: complications in pregnancy or delivery and birth outcome Obstet Gynecol 2002. May. 99: (5 Pt 1) 799-806. (PubMed) 54. AT Bianco, SW Smilen, Y Davis, S Lopez, R Lapinski, and CJ Lockwood. Pregnancy out- come and weight gain recommendations for the morbidly obese woman Obstet Gynecol 1998. Jan. 91: (1) 97-102. (PubMed) 55. LE Edwards, WL Hellerstedt, IR Alton, M Story, and JH Himes. Pregnancy complications and birth outcomes in obese and normal-weight women: effects of gestational weight change Obstet Gynecol 1996. Mar. 87: (3) 389-94. (PubMed) 56. Kieffer EC, Carman WJ, Gillespie BW, Nolan GH, Worley SE, Guzman JR. Obesity and gestational diabetes among African-American women and Latinas in Detroit: implica- tions for disparities in women’s health. J Am Med Womens Assoc. 2001 Fall;56(4):181-7, 96. 57. R Hackmon, R James, C O’Reilly Green, A Ferber, Y Barnhard, and M Divon. The im- pact of maternal age, body mass index and maternal weight gain on the glucose challenge test in pregnancy J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2007. Mar. 20: (3) 253-7. (PubMed) 58. M Cedergren. Effects of gestational weight gain and body mass index on obstetric out- come in Sweden Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006. Jun. 93: (3) 269-74. (PubMed) 59. DM Jensen, P Ovesen, H Beck-Nielsen, L Molsted-Pedersen, B Sorensen, and C Vinter, et al. Gestational weight gain and pregnancy outcomes in 481 obese glucose-tolerant women Diabet Care 2005. Sep. 28: (9) 2118-22.

OCR for page 389
 WEIGHT GAIN DURING PREGNANCY 60. D Ogunyemi, S Hullett, J Leeper, and A Risk. Prepregnancy body mass index, weight gain during pregnancy, and perinatal outcome in a rural black population J Matern Fetal Med 1998. Jul-Aug. 7: (4) 190-3. (PubMed) 61. K Wataba, T Mizutani, K Wasada, M Morine, T Sugiyama, and N Suehara. Impact of prepregnant body mass index and maternal weight gain on the risk of pregnancy complications in Japanese women Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006. 85: (3) 269-76. (PubMed) 62. CW Ko. Risk factors for gallstone-related hospitalization during pregnancy and the postpartum Am J Gastroenterol 2006. Oct. 101: (10) 2263-8. (PubMed) 63. G Lindseth and MY Bird-Baker. Risk factors for cholelithiasis in pregnancy Res Nurs Health 2004. 27: (6) 382-91. (PubMed) 64. CA Gosselink, EE Ekwo, RF Woolson, A Moawad, and CR Long. Dietary habits, pre- pregnancy weight, and weight gain during pregnancy. Risk of pre term rupture of amni- otic sac membranes Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1992. Aug. 71: (6) 425-38. (PubMed) 65. EA Nohr, BH Bech, M Vaeth, KM Rasmussen, TB Henriksen, and J Olsen. Obesity, ges- tational weight gain and preterm birth: a study within the Danish National Birth Cohort Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2007. Jan. 21: (1) 5-14. (PubMed) 66. JM Lang, E Lieberman, and A Cohen. A comparison of risk factors for preterm labor and term small-for-gestational-age birth Epidemiology 1996. Jul. 7: (4) 369-76. (PubMed) 67. BW Graves, SA DeJoy, A Heath, and P Pekow. Maternal body mass index, delivery route, and induction of labor in a midwifery caseload J Midwifery Womens Health 2006. Jul- Aug. 51: (4) 254-9. (PubMed) 68. U Ekblad and S Grenman. Maternal weight, weight gain during pregnancy and pregnancy outcome Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1992. Dec. 39: (4) 277-83. (PubMed) 69. P Purfield and K Morin. Excessive weight gain in primigravidas with low-risk pregnancy: selected obstetric consequences J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 1995. Jun. 24: (5) 434-9. 70. JW Johnson, JA Longmate, and B Frentzen. Excessive maternal weight and pregnancy outcome Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992. Aug. 167: (2) 353-70. discussion 70-2 (PubMed) 71. TJ Rosenberg, S Garbers, H Lipkind, and MA Chiasson. Maternal obesity and diabetes as risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes: differences among 4 racial/ethnic groups Am J Public Health 2005. Sep. 95: (9) 1545-51. (PubMed) (Full Text in PMC) 72. KS Joseph, DC Young, L Dodds, CM O’Connell, VM Allen, and S Chandra, et al. Changes in maternal characteristics and obstetric practice and recent increases in primary cesarean delivery Obstet Gynecol 2003. Oct. 102: (4) 791-800. (PubMed) 73. G Chen, S Uryasev, and TK Young. On prediction of the cesarean delivery risk in a large private practice Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004. Aug. 191: (2) 616-24. discussion 24-5 (PubMed) 74. TK Young and B Woodmansee. Factors that are associated with cesarean delivery in a large private practice: the importance of prepregnancy body mass index and weight gain Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002. Aug. 187: (2) 312-8. discussion 8-20 (PubMed) 75. MJ Shepard, AF Saftlas, L Leo-Summers, and MB Bracken. Maternal anthropometric factors and risk of primary cesarean delivery Am J Public Health 1998. Oct. 88: (10) 1534-8. (PubMed) (Full Text in PMC) 76. FR Witter, LE Caulfield, and RJ Stoltzfus. Influence of maternal anthropometric status and birth weight on the risk of cesarean delivery Obstet Gynecol 1995. Jun. 85: (6) 947- 51. (PubMed) 77. NJ Jain, CE Denk, LK Kruse, and V Dandolu. Maternal obesity: can pregnancy weight gain modify risk of selected adverse pregnancy outcomes? Am J Perinatol 2007. May. 24: (5) 291-8. (PubMed)

OCR for page 389
 APPENDIX E 78. A Sherrard, RW Platt, D Vallerand, RH Usher, X Zhang, and MS Kramer. Maternal anthropometric risk factors for caesarean delivery before or after onset of labour BJOG 2007. Sep. 114: (9) 1088-96. (PubMed) 79. G Juhasz, C Gyamfi, P Gyamfi, K Tocce, and JL Stone. Effect of body mass index and excessive weight gain on success of vaginal birth after cesarean delivery Obstet Gynecol 2005. Oct. 106: (4) 741-6. (PubMed) 80. M Geary, P McParland, H Johnson, and J Stronge. Shoulder dystocia—is it predictable? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1995. Sep. 62: (1) 15-8. (PubMed) 81. VA Marshall. Maternal health practices and complications of term labor J Nurse- Midwifery 1991. 36: (3) 168-73. (PubMed) 82. S Carmichael, B Abrams, and S Selvin. The association of pattern of maternal weight gain with length of gestation and risk of spontaneous preterm delivery Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1997. Oct. 11: (4) 392-406. (PubMed) 83. EG Velonakis, P Maghiorakos, A Tzonou, J Barrat, J Proteau, and I Ladopoulos. The re- lation of birth weight and gestational age to biological, occupational and socioeconomic factors Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 1997. 24: (4) 232-6. (PubMed) 84. AM Siega-Riz, LS Adair, and CJ Hobel. Maternal underweight status and inadequate rate of weight gain during the third trimester of pregnancy increases the risk of preterm delivery J Nutr 1996. Jan. 126: (1) 146-53. (PubMed) 85. NE Stotland, AB Caughey, M Lahiff, and B Abrams. Weight gain and spontaneous pre- term birth: the role of race or ethnicity and previous preterm birth Obstet Gynecol 2006. Dec. 108: (6) 1448-55. (PubMed) 86. LA Schieve, ME Cogswell, and KS Scanlon. Maternal weight gain and preterm deliv- ery: differential effects by body mass index Epidemiology 1999. Mar. 10: (2) 141-7. (PubMed) 87. A Spinillo, E Capuzzo, G Piazzi, A Ferrari, V Morales, and M Di Mario. Risk for spon- taneous preterm delivery by combined body mass index and gestational weight gain patterns Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1998. Jan. 77: (1) 32-6. (PubMed) 88. MS Kramer, AL Coates, MC Michoud, S Dagenais, EF Hamilton, and A Papageorgiou. Maternal anthropometry and idiopathic preterm labor Obstet Gynecol 1995. Nov. 86: (5) 744-8. (PubMed) 89. SW Wen, RL Goldenberg, GR Cutter, HJ Hoffman, and SP Cliver. Intrauterine growth retardation and preterm delivery: prenatal risk factors in an indigent population Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990. Jan. 162: (1) 213-8. (PubMed) 90. JD Paauw, S Bierling, CR Cook, and AT Davis. Hyperemesis gravidarum and fetal out- come J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2005. Mar-Apr. 29: (2) 93-6. 91. G Di Cianni, R Miccoli, L Volpe, C Lencioni, A Ghio, and MG Giovannitti, et al. Ma- ternal triglyceride levels and newborn weight in pregnant women with normal glucose tolerance Diabet Med 2005. Jan. 22: (1) 21-5. 92. AM Guihard-Costa, E Papiernik, and S Kolb. Maternal predictors of subcutaneous fat in the term newborn Acta Paediatr 2004. Mar. 93: (3) 346-9. (PubMed) 93. S Kirchengast and B Hartmann. Impact of maternal age and maternal somatic character- istics on newborn size Am J Hum Biol 2003. Mar-Apr. 15: (2) 220-8. (PubMed) 94. C Shapiro, VG Sutija, and J Bush. Effect of maternal weight gain on infant birth weight J Perinat Med 2000. 28: (6) 428-31. (PubMed) 95. FF Cherry, HH Sandstead, and AR Wickremasinghe. Adolescent pregnancy. Weight and zinc supplementation effects Ann N Y Acad Sci 1993. Mar 15. 678: 334-7. (PubMed) 96. NS Springer, K Bischoping, CM Sampselle, FL Mayes, and BA Petersen. Using early weight gain and other nutrition-related risk factors to predict pregnancy outcomes J Am Diet Assoc 1992. Feb. 92: (2) 217-9. (PubMed)

OCR for page 389
 WEIGHT GAIN DURING PREGNANCY 97. NF Butte, KJ Ellis, WW Wong, JM Hopkinson, and EO Smith. Composition of gesta- tional weight gain impacts maternal fat retention and infant birth weight Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003. Nov. 189: (5) 1423-32. (PubMed) 98. JE Brown, MA Murtaugh, DR Jacobs Jr, and HC Margellos. Variation in newborn size according to pregnancy weight change by trimester Am J Clin Nutr 2002. Jul. 76: (1) 205-9. (PubMed) 99. B Zaren, S Cnattingius, and G Lindmark. Fetal growth impairment from smoking—is it influenced by maternal anthropometry? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl 1997. 165: 30-4. (PubMed) 100. A Pezzarossa, N Orlandi, V Baggi, D Dazzi, E Ricciarelli, and F Coppola. Effects of maternal weight variations and gestational diabetes mellitus on neonatal birth weight J Diabetes Complications 1996. Mar-Apr. 10: (2) 78-83. (PubMed) 101. B Abrams and S Selvin. Maternal weight gain pattern and birth weight Obstet Gynecol 1995. Aug. 86: (2) 163-9. (PubMed) 102. ML Hediger, TO Scholl, JI Schall, MF Healey, and RL Fischer. Changes in maternal upper arm fat stores are predictors of variation in infant birth weight J Nutr 1994. Jan. 124: (1) 24-30. (PubMed) 103. JY Groff, PD Mullen, M Mongoven, and K Burau. Prenatal weight gain patterns and infant birthweight associated with maternal smoking Birth: Issues in Perinatal Care 1997. 24: (4) 234-9. 104. B Luke, ML Hediger, and TO Scholl. Point of diminishing returns: when does gestational weight gain cease benefiting birthweight and begin adding to maternal obesity? J Mater- nal-Fetal Med 1996. 5: (4) 168-73. 105. SK Muscati, K Gray-Donald, and KG Koski. Timing of weight gain during pregnancy: promoting fetal growth and minimizing maternal weight retention Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1996. Jun. 20: (6) 526-32. (PubMed) 106. CA Hickey, R Uauy, LM Rodriguez, and LW Jennings. Maternal weight gain in low- income black and Hispanic women: evaluation by use of weight-for-height near term Am J Clin Nutr 1990. Nov. 52: (5) 938-43. (PubMed) 107. E Desjardins and D Hardwick. How many visits by health professionals are needed to make a difference in low birthweight? A dose-response study of the Toronto Healthiest Babies Possible program Can J Public Health 1999. Jul-Aug. 90: (4) 224-8. (PubMed) 108. W Zhou and J Olsen. Gestational weight gain as a predictor of birth and placenta weight according to pre-pregnancy body mass index Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997. Apr. 76: (4) 300-7. (PubMed) 109. JN Lasker, B Coyle, K Li, and M Ortynsky. Assessment of risk factors for low birth weight deliveries Health Care for Women International 2005. 26: (3) 262-80. (PubMed) 110. MM Hedderson, NS Weiss, DA Sacks, DJ Pettitt, JV Selby, and CP Quesenberry, et al. Pregnancy weight gain and risk of neonatal complications: macrosomia, hypoglycemia, and hyperbilirubinemia Obstet Gynecol 2006. Nov. 108: (5) 1153-61. (PubMed) 111. H Takimoto, T Sugiyama, H Fukuoka, N Kato, and N Yoshiike. Maternal weight gain ranges for optimal fetal growth in Japanese women Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006. Mar. 92: (3) 272-8. (PubMed) 112. RL Bergmann, R Richter, KE Bergmann, A Plagemann, M Brauer, and JW Dudenhausen. Secular trends in neonatal macrosomia in Berlin: influences of potential determinants Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2003. Jul. 17: (3) 244-9. (PubMed) 113. T Clausen, TK Burski, N Oyen, K Godang, J Bollerslev, and T Henriksen. Maternal anthropometric and metabolic factors in the first half of pregnancy and risk of neonatal macrosomia in term pregnancies. A prospective study Eur J Endocrinol 2005. Dec. 153: (6) 887-94. (PubMed)

OCR for page 389
 APPENDIX E 114. DK Steward and DK Moser. Intrauterine growth retardation in full-term newborn infants with birth weights greater than 2,500 g Res Nurs Health 2004. Dec. 27: (6) 403-12. (PubMed) 115. S Bo, G Menato, A Signorile, C Bardelli, A Lezo, and ML Gallo, et al. Obesity or diabe- tes: what is worse for the mother and for the baby? Diabet Metab 2003. Apr. 29: (2 Pt 1) 175-8. 116. LE Caulfield, RJ Stoltzfus, and FR Witter. Implications of the Institute of Medicine weight gain recommendations for preventing adverse pregnancy outcomes in black and white women Am J Public Health 1998. Aug. 88: (8) 1168-74. (PubMed) (Full Text in PMC) 117. MJ Shepard, LS Bakketeig, G Jacobsen, T O‘Connor, and MB Bracken. Maternal body mass, proportional weight gain, and fetal growth in parous women Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 1996. Apr. 10: (2) 207-19. (PubMed) 118. JD Parker and B Abrams. Prenatal weight gain advice: an examination of the recent pre- natal weight gain recommendations of the Institute of Medicine Obstet Gynecol 1992. May. 79: (5(Pt 1)) 664-9. (PubMed) 119. MG Dawes and JG Grudzinskas. Repeated measurement of maternal weight during pregnancy. Is this a useful practice? Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991. Feb. 98: (2) 189-94. (PubMed) 120. A Sunehag, C Berne, G Lindmark, and U Ewald. Gestational diabetes-perinatal outcome with a policy of liberal and intensive insulin therapy Ups J Med Sci 1991. 96: (3) 185-98. (PubMed) 121. M Kitajima, S Oka, I Yasuhi, M Fukuda, Y Rii, and T Ishimaru. Maternal serum triglyc- eride at 24-32 weeks‘ gestation and newborn weight in nondiabetic women with positive diabetic screens Obstet Gynecol 2001. May. 97: (5 Pt 1) 776-80. (PubMed) 122. MS Kramer, M Olivier, FH McLean, GE Dougherty, DM Willis, and RH Usher. Deter- minants of fetal growth and body proportionality Pediatrics 1990. Jul. 86: (1) 18-26. (PubMed) 123. S Cnattingius, R Bergstrom, L Lipworth, and MS Kramer. Prepregnancy weight and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes N Eng J Med 1998. 338: (3) 147-52. 124. CJ Cheng, K Bommarito, A Noguchi, W Holcomb, and T Leet. Body mass index change between pregnancies and small for gestational age births Obstet Gynecol 2004. Aug. 104: (2) 286-92. (PubMed) 125. SA Nixon, MD Avery, and K Savik. Outcomes of macrosomic infants in a nurse- midwifery service J Nurse Midwifery 1998. Jul-Aug. 43: (4) 280-6. (PubMed) 126. EA Nohr, BH Bech, MJ Davies, M Frydenberg, TB Henriksen, and J Olsen. Prepregnancy obesity and fetal death: a study within the Danish National Birth Cohort Obstet Gynecol 2005. Aug. 106: (2) 250-9. (PubMed) 127. LA Bracero and DW Byrne. Optimal maternal weight gain during singleton pregnancy Gynecol Obstet Invest 1998. 46: (1) 9-16. (PubMed) 128. RL Naeye. Maternal body weight and pregnancy outcome Am J Clin Nutr 1990. Aug. 52: (2) 273-9. (PubMed) 129. NE Stotland, YW Cheng, LM Hopkins, and AB Caughey. Gestational weight gain and adverse neonatal outcome among term infants Obstet Gynecol 2006. Sep. 108: (3 Pt 1) 635-43. (PubMed) 130. LG Spector, SM Davies, LL Robison, JM Hilden, M Roesler, and JA Ross. Birth char- acteristics, maternal reproductive history, and the risk of infant leukemia: a report from the Children‘s Oncology Group Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007. Jan. 16: (1) 128-34. (PubMed) 131. BR Vohr, ST McGarvey, and CG Coll. Effects of maternal gestational diabetes and adiposity on neonatal adiposity and blood pressure Diabet Care 1995. Apr. 18: (4) 467-75.

OCR for page 389
 WEIGHT GAIN DURING PREGNANCY 132. NA Sowan and ML Stember. Parental risk factors for infant obesity Am J Matern Child Nurs 2000. 25: (5) 234-41. 133. KK Ong, ML Ahmed, PM Emmett, MA Preece, and DB Dunger. Association between postnatal catch-up growth and obesity in childhood: prospective cohort study Br Med J 2000. Apr 8. 320: (7240) 967-71. (PubMed) (Full Text in PMC) 134. C Li, MI Goran, H Kaur, N Nollen, and JS Ahluwalia. Developmental trajectories of overweight during childhood: role of early life factors Obesity (Silver Spring) 2007. Mar. 15: (3) 760-71. (PubMed) 135. W Yuan, O Basso, HT Sorensen, and J Olsen. Maternal prenatal lifestyle factors and infectious disease in early childhood: a follow-up study of hospitalization within a Danish birth cohort Pediatrics 2001. Feb. 107: (2) 357-62. (PubMed) 136. Y Linne, L Dye, B Barkeling, and S Rossner. Weight development over time in parous women—the SPAWN study—15 years follow-up Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2003. Dec. 27: (12) 1516-22. (PubMed) 137. HE Harris, GT Ellison, and M Holliday. Is there an independent association between parity and maternal weight gain? Ann Hum Biol 1997. Nov-Dec. 24: (6) 507-19. (PubMed) 138. HE Harris, GT Ellison, M Holliday, and E Lucassen. The impact of pregnancy on the long-term weight gain of primiparous women in England Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 1997. Sep. 21: (9) 747-55. (PubMed) 139. SC Hunt, MM Daines, TD Adams, EM Heath, and RR Williams. Pregnancy weight retention in morbid obesity Obes Res 1995. Mar. 3: (2) 121-30. (PubMed) 140. ES Parham, MF Astrom, and SH King. The association of pregnancy weight gain with the mother‘s postpartum weight J Am Diet Assoc 1990. Apr. 90: (4) 550-4. (PubMed) 141. L Walker, JH Freeland-Graves, T Milani, G George, H Hanss-Nuss, and M Kim, et al. Weight and behavioral and psychosocial factors among ethnically diverse, low-income women after childbirth: II. Trends and correlates Women Health 2004. 40: (2) 19-34. 142. Y Linne, L Dye, B Barkeling, and S Rossner. Long-term weight development in women: a 15-year follow-up of the effects of pregnancy Obes Res 2004. Jul. 12: (7) 1166-78. (PubMed) 143. H Soltani and RB Fraser. A longitudinal study of maternal anthropometric changes in normal weight, overweight and obese women during pregnancy and postpartum Br J Nutr 2000. Jul. 84: (1) 95-101. (PubMed) 144. HE Harris, GT Ellison, and S Clement. Relative importance of heritable characteristics and lifestyle in the development of maternal obesity J Epidemiol Community Health 1999. Feb. 53: (2) 66-74. (PubMed) (Full Text in PMC) 145. A Ohlin and S Rossner. Maternal body weight development after pregnancy Int J Obes 1990. Feb. 14: (2) 159-73. 146. LK Callaway, HD McIntyre, M O’Callaghan, GM Williams, JM Najman, and DA Law- lor. The association of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy with weight gain over the subsequent 21 years: findings from a prospective cohort study Am J Epidemiol 2007. Aug 15. 166: (4) 421-8. (PubMed) 147. LL Kaiser and L Allen. Position of the American Dietetic Association: nutrition and life- style for a healthy pregnancy outcome J Am Diet Assoc 2002. Oct. 102: (10) 1479-90. (PubMed) 148. L Hilakivi-Clarke, R Luoto, T Huttunen, and M Koskenvuo. Pregnancy weight gain and premenopausal breast cancer risk J Reprod Med 2005. Nov. 50: (11) 811-6. (PubMed) 149. NE Stotland, LM Hopkins, and AB Caughey. Gestational weight gain, macrosomia, and risk of cesarean birth in nondiabetic nulliparas Obstet Gynecol 2004. Oct. 104: (4) 671- 7. (PubMed)

OCR for page 389
 APPENDIX E 150. PS Kaiser and RS Kirby. Obesity as a risk factor for cesarean in a low-risk population Obstet Gynecol 2001. Jan. 97: (1) 39-43. (PubMed) 151. CA Hickey, SP Cliver, SF McNeal, HJ Hoffman, and RL Goldenberg. Prenatal weight gain patterns and spontaneous preterm birth among nonobese black and white women Obstet Gynecol 1995. Jun. 85: (6) 909-14. (PubMed) 152. LA Schieve, ME Cogswell, KS Scanlon, G Perry, C Ferre, and C Blackmore-Prince, et al. Prepregnancy body mass index and pregnancy weight gain: associations with preterm delivery. The NMIHS Collaborative Study Group Obstet Gynecol 2000. Aug. 96: (2) 194-200. (PubMed) 153. JN Nielsen, KO O’Brien, FR Witter, SC Chang, J Mancini, and MS Nathanson, et al. High gestational weight gain does not improve birth weight in a cohort of African Ameri- can adolescents Am J Clin Nutr 2006. Jul. 84: (1) 183-9. (PubMed) 154. C Stevens-Simon and ER McAnarney. Adolescent pregnancy. Gestational weight gain and maternal and infant outcomes Am J Dis Child 1992. Nov. 146: (11) 1359-64. (PubMed) 155. CA Hickey, SP Cliver, SF McNeal, HJ Hoffman, and RL Goldenberg. Prenatal weight gain patterns and birth weight among nonobese black and white women Obstet Gynecol 1996. Oct. 88: (4 Pt 1) 490-6. (PubMed) 156. CA Hickey, SP Cliver, RL Goldenberg, J Kohatsu, and HJ Hoffman. Prenatal weight gain, term birth weight, and fetal growth retardation among high-risk multiparous black and white women Obstet Gynecol 1993. Apr. 81: (4) 529-35. (PubMed) 157. R May. Prepregnancy weight, inappropriate gestational weight gain, and smoking: Rela- tionships to birth weight Am J Hum Biol 2007. May-Jun. 19: (3) 305-10. (PubMed) 158. TO Scholl, ML Hediger, JI Schall, IG Ances, and WK Smith. Gestational weight gain, pregnancy outcome, and postpartum weight retention Obstet Gynecol 1995. Sep. 86: (3) 423-7. (PubMed) 159. WL Hellerstedt, JH Himes, M Story, IR Alton, and LE Edwards. The effects of cigarette smoking and gestational weight change on birth outcomes in obese and normal-weight women Am J Public Health 1997. Apr. 87: (4) 591-6. (PubMed) (Full Text in PMC) 160. LA Schieve, ME Cogswell, and KS Scanlon. An empiric evaluation of the Institute of Medicine’s pregnancy weight gain guidelines by race Obstet Gynecol 1998. Jun. 91: (6) 878-84. (PubMed) 161. RS Strauss and WH Dietz. Low maternal weight gain in the second or third trimester increases the risk for intrauterine growth retardation J Nutr 1999. May. 129: (5) 988-93. (PubMed) 162. TC Hulsey, D Neal, SC Bondo, T Hulsey, and R Newman. Maternal prepregnant body mass index and weight gain related to low birth weight in South Carolina South Med J 2005. Apr. 98: (4) 411-5. (PubMed) 163. Prenatal weight gain and birth weight among Oklahoma mothers. J Okla State Med As- soc. 1996 Dec;89(12):435-8. 164. L Rode, HK Hegaard, H Kjaergaard, LF Moller, A Tabor, and B Ottesen. Association between maternal weight gain and birth weight Obstet Gynecol 2007. Jun. 109: (6) 1309- 15. (PubMed) 165. C Kabali and MM Werler. Pre-pregnant body mass index, weight gain and the risk of delivering large babies among non-diabetic mothers Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2007. May. 97: (2) 100-4. (PubMed) (Full Text in PMC) 166. JL Baker, KF Michaelsen, TI Sorensen, and KM Rasmussen. High prepregnant body mass index is associated with early termination of full and any breastfeeding in Danish women Am J Clin Nutr 2007. Aug. 86: (2) 404-11. (PubMed) 167. R Li, S Jewell, and L Grummer-Strawn. Maternal obesity and breast-feeding practices Am J Clin Nutr 2003. Apr. 77: (4) 931-6. (PubMed)

OCR for page 389
 WEIGHT GAIN DURING PREGNANCY 168. KM Rasmussen, JA Hilson, and CL Kjolhede. Obesity as a risk factor for failure to initi- ate and sustain lactation Adv Exp Med Biol 2002. 503: 217-22. (PubMed) 169. JA Hilson, KM Rasmussen, and CL Kjolhede. Excessive weight gain during pregnancy is associated with earlier termination of breast-feeding among White women J Nutr 2006. Jan. 136: (1) 140-6. (PubMed) 170. LO Walker, GM Timmerman, BS Sterling, M Kim, and P Dickson. Do low-income women attain their pre-pregnant weight by the 6th week of postpartum? Ethn Dis 2004. Winter. 14: (1) 119-26. (PubMed) 171. AR Amorim, S Rossner, M Neovius, PM Lourenco, and Y Linne. Does excess pregnancy weight gain constitute a major risk for increasing long-term BMI? Obesity (Silver Spring) 2007. May. 15: (5) 1278-86. (PubMed) 172. LO Walker. Predictors of weight gain at 6 and 18 months after childbirth: a pilot study J Obstet Gynecol Neonat Nurs 1996. 25: (1) 39-48. 173. Keppel KG, Taffel SM. Pregnancy-related weight gain and retention: implications of the 1990 Institute of Medicine guidelines. Am J Pub Health.83(8):1100-3. 174. BL Rooney and CW Schauberger. Excess pregnancy weight gain and long-term obesity: one decade later Obstet Gynecol 2002. Aug. 100: (2) 245-52. (PubMed) 175. CM Olson, MS Strawderman, PS Hinton, and TA Pearson. Gestational weight gain and postpartum behaviors associated with weight change from early pregnancy to 1 y post- partum Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2003. Jan. 27: (1) 117-27. (PubMed) 176. BL Rooney, CW Schauberger, and MA Mathiason. Impact of perinatal weight change on long-term obesity and obesity-related illnesses Obstet Gynecol 2005. 106: (6) 1349-56. (PubMed) 177. EP Gunderson, B Abrams, and S Selvin. The relative importance of gestational gain and maternal characteristics associated with the risk of becoming overweight after pregnancy Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2000. Dec. 24: (12) 1660-8. (PubMed) 178. G Larciprete, H Valensise, B Vasapollo, F Altomare, R Sorge, and B Casalino, et al. Body composition during normal pregnancy: reference ranges Acta Diabetol 2003. Oct. 40: Suppl 1 S225-32. (PubMed) 179. A Sohlstrom, LO Wahlund, and E Forsum. Total body fat and its distribution during human reproduction as assessed by magnetic resonance imaging Basic Life Sci 1993. 60: 181-4. (PubMed) 180. A Paxton, SA Lederman, SB Heymsfield, J Wang, JC Thornton, and RN Pierson Jr. An- thropometric equations for studying body fat in pregnant women Am J Clin Nutr 1998. Jan. 67: (1) 104-10. (PubMed) 181. L Jovanovic-Peterson, J Crues, E Durak, and CM Peterson. Magnetic resonance imaging in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes predicts infant birthweight ratio and neonatal morbidity Am J Perinatol 1993. Nov. 10: (6) 432-7. (PubMed) 182. JL Bartha, P Marin-Segura, NL Gonzalez-Gonzalez, F Wagner, M Aguilar-Diosdado, and B Hervias-Vivancos. Ultrasound evaluation of visceral fat and metabolic risk factors during early pregnancy Obesity (Silver Spring) 2007. Sep. 15: (9) 2233-9. (PubMed) 183. DF Williamson, J Madans, RF Anda, JC Kleinman, GA Giovino, and T Byers. Smoking cessation and severity of weight gain in a national cohort N Engl J Med 1991. Mar 14. 324: (11) 739-45. (PubMed) 184. M Viswanathan, AG Visco, K Hartmann, ME Wechter, G Gartlehner, and JM Wu, et al. Cesarean delivery on maternal request Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2006. Mar. (133) 1-138. 185. MW Carpenter, SP Sady, MA Sady, B Haydon, DR Coustan, and PD Thompson. Effect of maternal weight gain during pregnancy on exercise performance J Appl Physiol 1990. Mar. 68: (3) 1173-6. (PubMed)

OCR for page 389
 APPENDIX E 186. CS Johnston, FS Christopher, and LA Kandell. Pregnancy weight gain in adolescents and young adults J Am Coll Nutr 1991. Jun. 10: (3) 185-9. (PubMed) 187. S Groth. Are the Institute of Medicine recommendations for gestational weight gain appropriate for adolescents? J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2007. Jan-Feb. 36: (1) 21-7. 188. MI Cedergren. Optimal gestational weight gain for body mass index categories Obstet Gynecol 2007. Oct. 110: (4) 759-64. (PubMed) 189. E von Elm, DG Altman, M Egger, SJ Pocock, PC Gotzsche, and JP Vandenbroucke. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) state- ment: guidelines for reporting observational studies J Clin Epidemiol 2008. Apr. 61: (4) 344-9. (PubMed)

OCR for page 389