Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Subscribe | Contacts | Advertise | Login 
 
Search Article 
  
Advanced search 
  Users Online: 960 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size  

 
Table of Contents
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 21  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 588-593

Gestational weight gain and pregnancy outcomes in relation to body mass index in Asian Indian women


1 Department of Diabetology and Epidemiology, Madras Diabetes Research Foundation, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seethapathy Clinic and Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
3 Department of Policy and Programmes, International Diabetes Federation, Brussels, Belgium
4 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Joseph Nursing Home, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Date of Web Publication9-Jun-2017

Correspondence Address:
Viswanathan Mohan
Madras Diabetes Research Foundation and Dr. Mohan's Diabetes Specialities Centre, WHO Collaborating Center for Non.Communicable Disease Prevention and Control, 4, Conran Smith Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai - 600 086, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijem.IJEM_557_16

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 


Aim: The aim of the study was to compare the weight gain during pregnancy (using Institute of Medicine guidelines) among Asian Indians across different body mass index (BMI) categories (using World Health Organization Asia Pacific BMI cut points) and to compare the pregnancy outcomes in each of the different BMI categories. Methodology: Retrospective records of 2728 pregnant women attending antenatal clinics and private maternity centers in Chennai, South India, from January 2011 to January 2014 were studied. Pregnancy outcomes were analyzed in relation to BMI and weight gain across different BMI categories. Results: Overweight and obese women who gained more weight during pregnancy were at high risk of delivering macrosomic infants (overweight - odds ratio [OR]: 2.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1–5.2, P = 0.02 and obese - OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.1–2.4, P = 0.01). In addition, obese women who gained more weight were also at high risk of preterm labor (OR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.1–3.8; P = 0.01), cesarean section (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.4–2.5; P< 0.001), and preeclampsia (OR: 2.8, 95% CI: 1.1–7.2, P = 0.03). Normal weight and overweight women who gained less weight had a protective effect from cesarean section and macrosomia. Conclusions: Overweight/obese women who gained more weight than recommended are at a high risk of developing adverse pregnancy outcomes. Normal and overweight women who gained weight less than recommended have low risk for cesarean section and macrosomia. However, they have a higher (statistically insignificant) risk for low birth weight and preterm birth. This highlights the need for gaining adequate weight during pregnancy.

Keywords: Asian Indians, gestational weight gain, Institute of Medicine, pregnancy outcomes, World Health Organization Asia Pacific


How to cite this article:
Bhavadharini B, Anjana RM, Deepa M, Jayashree G, Nrutya S, Shobana M, Malanda B, Kayal A, Belton A, Joseph K, Rekha K, Uma R, Mohan V. Gestational weight gain and pregnancy outcomes in relation to body mass index in Asian Indian women. Indian J Endocr Metab 2017;21:588-93

How to cite this URL:
Bhavadharini B, Anjana RM, Deepa M, Jayashree G, Nrutya S, Shobana M, Malanda B, Kayal A, Belton A, Joseph K, Rekha K, Uma R, Mohan V. Gestational weight gain and pregnancy outcomes in relation to body mass index in Asian Indian women. Indian J Endocr Metab [serial online] 2017 [cited 2019 Jul 16];21:588-93. Available from: http://www.ijem.in/text.asp?2017/21/4/588/207700




   Introduction Top


In recent years, maternal prepregnancy body mass index (BMI) has increased, reflecting the overall increase in the prevalence of obesity.[1] High prepregnancy BMI and/or excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) have negative implications on pregnancy outcomes, and this amplifies the burden of chronic diseases putting health of both mother and the infant at risk.[2]

Recent studies have reported that prepregnancy BMI is associated with birth weight of the infant.[3],[4] Women who are overweight/obese are at high risk of developing preeclampsia and gestational diabetes mellitus. This in turn is found to influence the neonatal outcomes such as perinatal mortality, macrosomia, and congenital anomalies.[5],[6] In addition, maternal obesity leads to higher cesarean sections and increased risk of anesthesia. The long-term impact of maternal obesity includes maternal weight retention and exacerbation of obesity and postpartum.[7]

In 2009, the Institute of Medicine (IOM), USA, published revised GWG guidelines that are based on prepregnancy ranges for underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese women.[8] These recommendations were, however, based on American women and therefore its generalizability to other populations is unclear as maternal anthropometry varies across different populations.[9] The IOM later published a commentary acknowledging that they based their recommendations primarily on the basis of primigravida mothers of high social status and those with no physical activity.[10] Some recent studies from Asia have concluded that IOM guidelines are suitable for the Asian population,[11],[12] whereas others have reported that GWG among Asians is different from what has been recommended by the IOM.[13],[14] There are very few studies from India that have looked at the applicability of the IOM guidelines in pregnant women.[15] This is mainly because the BMI classification for Asians [16] is different from the World Health Organization (WHO) BMI cutoffs recommended for the West. Furthermore, there are no national guidelines for weight gain during pregnancy in India. The weight gain recommendations by the IOM are in turn, based on Western WHO BMI cutoffs, making it difficult to compare, translate, or generalize their findings to Asian Indians.

We, therefore, aimed to compare the weight gain during pregnancy (using IOM weight gain guidelines) among Asian Indians across different BMI categories (using WHO Asia Pacific BMI cut points) and to compare the pregnancy outcomes in each of the different BMI categories.


   Methodology Top


A total of 4081 records of pregnant women attending three antenatal clinics and private maternity centers in Chennai, from January 2011 to January 2014 were retrieved. Of the total 4081, a total of 2728 (66.8%) records were available for data analysis after data cleansing. BMI at first booking (early pregnancy) was classified according to WHO Asia Pacific BMI cut points,[16] and weight gain during pregnancy was classified according to IOM recommendations [Table 1]. Pregnancy outcomes were analyzed in relation to BMI and GWG across different BMI categories.
Table 1: Institute of Medicine weight gain recommendations for pregnancy

Click here to view


Definitions

Preterm birth or premature birth is one that occurs before the start of 37 weeks of pregnancy.[17] Macrosomia is used to describe a newborn who is significantly larger than average; a infant weighing >3.5 kg is considered macrosomic.[18]

Statistical analysis

All analyses were done using Windows-based SPSS statistical package (version 22.0, IBM SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). Estimates were expressed as mean ± standard deviation or proportions. To compare continuous variables, t- tests were used, whereas Chi-square tests were used to test differences in proportions. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Logistic regression was carried out to assess the association between GWG and adverse pregnancy outcomes such as preterm delivery, macrosomia, cesarean section, low birth weight, and preeclampsia. Independent variables for logistic regression were chosen based on P< 0.2 in univariate analysis.


   Results Top


Mean age of pregnant women was 27.4 ± 4 years, mean BMI was 25.1 ± 4.8 kg/m 2, and mean weight gain during pregnancy was 8.8 ± 4.8 kg. Family history of type 2 diabetes was seen in 6.6%.

As shown in [Figure 1], 5.6% (n = 154) were underweight, 29% (n = 791) normal weight, 18.5% (n = 504) overweight, and the rest 46.9% (n = 1279) were obese. [Table 2] shows the clinical characteristics and pregnancy outcomes of the women classified according to their BMI at first booking. Obese women were significantly older (27.9 ± 4.1 years) than overweight, normal weight, and underweight women (27.3 ± 3.8, 27.0 ± 3.9, and 25.6 ± 3.7 years, P< 0.0001, respectively). Weight at booking (kg) was significantly higher in obese women when compared to the other three groups. Family history of diabetes was significantly higher among obese women (8.1%) compared to the overweight, normal weight, and underweight women (5.4%, 5.5%, and 3.2%, P< 0.001, respectively). The mean birth weight of the infants born to normal weight, overweight, and obese women was significantly higher than birth weight of infants of underweight women (3.0 ± 0.4 kg, 3.0 ± 0.5 kg, 3.0 ± 0.5 kg, and 2.9 ± 0.4 kg; P = 0.007, respectively). Rates of cesarean sections (45%, 33.7%, 26.2%, and 13.6%, P< 0.001), macrosomia (14.2%, 12.7%, 8.9%, and 6.5%, P = 0.001), and preeclampsia (1.9%, 0.7%, 0.3%, and 0.6%, P = 0.006) were significantly higher in obese women than overweight, normal weight, and underweight women, respectively.
Figure 1: Classification of body mass index according to Asia Pacific guidelines

Click here to view
Table 2: Clinical characteristics at first booking

Click here to view


[Figure 2] shows weight gain during pregnancy across the different BMI categories. It was seen that 30.5% of underweight, 23.4% of normal weight, 22.5% overweight, and 37.1% obese women met the recommendations for weight gain. While majority of underweight (66.2%), normal weight women (69.4%), and overweight women (68.8%) gained weight less than recommended, among obese women, 28.5% of them gained more weight and 34.4% of them gained less than the recommended weight.
Figure 2: Comparison of weight gain across different body mass index categories

Click here to view


[Table 3] shows the association of GWG with pregnancy outcomes across the different BMI categories. Considering the pregnant women who met the weight gain recommendations as the reference group, we compared the risk of adverse outcomes in women who gained weight above [Table 3]a and below [Table 3]b the recommended weight after adjusting for age, parity, and presence of gestational diabetes. Overweight and obese women who gained more weight than recommended were at a significantly higher risk of delivering macrosomic infants (overweight - odds ratio [OR]: 2.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1–5.2; P = 0.02 and obese - OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.1–2.4; P = 0.01). In addition, obese women with more than the recommended weight gain were also at higher risk of preterm labor (OR: 2.1, 95% CI: 1.1–3.8, P = 0.01), cesarean section (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.4–2.5; P< 0.001), and preeclampsia (OR: 2.8, 95% CI: 1.1–7.2; P = 0.03). Underweight and normal weight women who gained more weight than recommended did not have any statistically significant adverse outcomes [Table 3]a.
Table 3:

Click here to view


[Table 3]b shows the risk for adverse outcomes in women who gained less than the recommended weight after adjusting for potential confounders such as age, parity, and presence of gestational diabetes. Normal weight and overweight women who gained less weight were found to have less risk of undergoing a cesarean section (normal weight - OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3–0.7, P< 0.001 and overweight OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3–0.8, P = 0.005) and developing macrosomia (normal weight - OR: 0.3, 95% CI: 0.2–0.6, P< 0.001 and overweight - OR: 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3–0.8, P = 0.02) compared to those who gained adequate weight according to the recommendations. However, the risk of preterm birth and low birth weight was higher in all the groups although this did not reach statistical significance.


   Discussion Top


Our study shows the following findings:

  1. Only 30% of women gained weight as per the recommendations
  2. Obese women who gained more weight were at a higher risk of preterm delivery, cesarean section, macrosomia, and preeclampsia. Overweight women who gained more weight had high risk of macrosomia
  3. Normal weight and overweight women who gained less weight than recommended had less risk of a cesarean section and macrosomia. However, there is a small albeit statistically insignificant risk of low birth weight and preterm birth.


The initial guidelines by the IOM in 1930 recommended that pregnant women should gain 6.8 kg irrespective of weight status.[19] Subsequently, with increasing prevalence of obesity and an increasing trend in birth of macrosomic infants, these guidelines were revised in 1990 and 2009.[9],[20] With overweight and obesity significantly contributing to the growing prevalence of large for gestational age infants and increasing the risk of pregnancy-related complications,[21] the IOM published new guidelines in 2009.[9] This new recommendation was based on WHO BMI categories and included a more restrictive range for weight gain for obese women. These guidelines took into account the risk of small for gestational age infants and preterm birth with inadequate GWG and increased risk for large for gestational age infants and cesarean section. Following the 2009 IOM publication, several studies were published supporting less weight gain, especially in overweight and obese women.[22],[23],[24],[25] Studies from less developed Asian countries validating these guidelines are emerging,[13] with very few studies from India.[19]

However, the WHO BMI categories that have been used to classify Europeans may not be appropriate for Asia Pacific population.[16] This is because while in the Asian population, the prevalence of obesity may be lower than in Europe; the health risks associated with obesity occur at a lower BMI in Asians than compared to the West, thereby making WHO BMI categorization, less relevant to the Asian population. Hence, in 2000, the Regional Office for the Western Pacific of WHO, the International Association for the Study of Obesity, and the International Obesity Task Force together released, the Asia-Pacific Perspective for redefining obesity suggesting diagnostic criteria to identify overweight and obesity in the Asian population.[16] Hence, in this paper, we have employed the WHO Asia Pacific BMI criteria to classify pregnant women in our study. However, in the absence of national guidelines for weight gain recommendations during pregnancy, we have assessed the usefulness of the IOM weight gain recommendations for our population by studying the adverse pregnancy outcomes in women who gained weight above and below the recommended guidelines.

Maternal obesity is a risk factor for several pregnancy-related complications which may have adverse effects on both the mother and her infant. Obese women have an increased risk of miscarriage early in pregnancy.[26] A prospective multicenter study of more than 16,000 pregnancy women showed that obese women were 2.5 times and 1.6 times more likely to develop gestational hypertension and preeclampsia, respectively.[27] In addition to these obstetric problems, obese women are also at an increased risk of undergoing cesarean sections.[28] Fetal overgrowth also is another major concern in obese women. In Denmark, the percentage of macrosomic infants increased from 16.7% to 20.9% in 10 years, and increasing maternal BMI has been implicated to be one major factor.[29] Several other studies have also shown an association between increasing BMI, cesarean section, and macrosomia.[30],[31] Moreover, the risk for macrosomic infants was found to be consistently higher in obese women who gained more weight, whereas the risk decreased when weight gain was below the recommended values.[25] Results from our study corroborate these findings.

Cesarean section is usually influenced by several factors, such as practice behavior of the obstetrician or other pregnancy complications in obese women, may necessitate the need for cesarean section. Nevertheless, results from our study show that obese women who gained more weight were at a significantly higher risk of cesarean delivery. In contrary, Edwards et al.[32] and Graham et al.[33] found that when stratified by maternal weight gain, there was no significant association between obesity and cesarean section. However, some others have reported that greater weight gain among obese women during pregnancy was particularly associated with higher risk of cesarean sections.[34] Our results also show that obese women who gain more than the recommended weight were at a high risk of preterm labor and macrosomia. Not many studies have reported on weight gain in obese women and its association to preterm labor. However, a few studies that have shown association between obese women and preterm labor lacked statistical significance.[35] Some studies have also reported a negative association between obesity and preterm labor.[36] These differences may be due to inconsistency in the definition of preterm birth and effect of other confounding variables.[37]

Underweight women are known to deliver preterm infants.[38] In addition, underweight women gaining less weight than recommended were shown to be at two-fold risk of delivering low birth weight infants than those who met the recommendations.[39] Our results showed that though the risk for low birth weight in underweight women was high, it was not statistically significant. This could be because the number of underweight women studied is less. Nevertheless, the percentage of low birth weight infants in our entire cohort was 10.7%. Although previous studies have reported a higher percentage (26%) of low birth weight infants,[40] the scenario seems to be fast changing owing to the quality of antenatal care available to pregnant women in the recent past.

The other important finding in this study is that though a major proportion of normal weight and overweight women gained less weight than recommended, the less weight gain had a less risk for cesarean sections and macrosomia which is in contrast with previous studies which showed that these women had increased risk for such complications.[23],[41] This difference could be attributed mainly due to the different BMI criteria used.

One of the main strengths of the study is the large sample size. Second, the applicability of IOM guidelines among pregnant women in India has not been explored much, and this is one of the first studies from India to study pregnancy outcomes in relation to BMI.

However, few limitations need to be highlighted. Ideally, BMI classification should be based on prepregnancy weight. However, as seen in several other studies that data are seldom available in routine antenatal records. Some studies rely on the woman's recall of prepregnancy weight, the dependability of which may sometimes be uncertain. In our study, we have used weight recorded in the antenatal records in early pregnancy which was the only feasible option for obtaining reliable information. Second, owing to the retrospective nature of the study, there was a substantial amount of missing data which has reduced the size and power of the study. Finally, the data are collected from urban antenatal centers and hence its generalizability to rural or to the whole of India must be done with caution.


   Conclusions Top


Excess as well as less weight gain during pregnancy could lead to adverse pregnancy outcomes. These results highlight the need for gaining adequate weight during pregnancy. Preconception counseling, especially for overweight and obese women, emphasizing the importance of proper physical activity and healthy eating to avoid excess weight gain and its adverse effects, could have beneficial outcomes in Asian Indian women.

Acknowledgement

This study was a part of the WINGS program developed through a partnership between the IDF, Brussels, Belgium, the MDRF in Chennai and Abbott Fund, the philanthropic foundation of the global healthcare company Abbott. This is the 11th publication from WINGS (WINGS 11).

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Kim SY, Dietz PM, England L, Morrow B, Callaghan WM. Trends in pre-pregnancy obesity in nine states, 1993-2003. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2007;15:986-93.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Lynch CM, Sexton DJ, Hession M, Morrison JJ. Obesity and mode of delivery in primigravid and multigravid women. Am J Perinatol 2008;25:163-7.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Frederick IO, Williams MA, Sales AE, Martin DP, Killien M. Pre-pregnancy body mass index, gestational weight gain, and other maternal characteristics in relation to infant birth weight. Matern Child Health J 2008;12:557-67.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Nohr EA, Vaeth M, Baker JL, Sørensen TIa, Olsen J, Rasmussen KM. Combined associations of prepregnancy body mass index and gestational weight gain with the outcome of pregnancy. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87:1750-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Sebire NJ, Jolly M, Harris JP, Wadsworth J, Joffe M, Beard RW, et al. Maternal obesity and pregnancy outcome: A study of 287,213 pregnancies in London. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2001;25:1175-82.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Young TK, Woodmansee B. 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;187:312-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Gunderson EP, Abrams B, Selvin S. Does the pattern of postpartum weight change differ according to pregravid body size? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 2001;25:853-62.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Institute of Medicine (US) and National Research Council (US) Committee to Reexamine IOM Pregnancy Weight Guidelines; Rasmussen KM, Yaktine AL, editors. Weight Gain during Pregnancy: Reexamining the Guidelines. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US); 2009.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Kelly A, Kevany J, de Onis M, Shah PM. A WHO collaborative study of maternal anthropometry and pregnancy outcomes. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1996;53:219-33.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Rasmussen KM, Abrams B, Bodnar LM, Butte NF, Catalano PM, Maria Siega-Riz A. Recommendations for weight gain during pregnancy in the context of the obesity epidemic. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:1191-5.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Yang YD, Yang HX. Investigation into the clinical suitability of Institute of Medicine 2009 guidelines regarding weight gain during pregnancy for women with full term singleton fetus in China. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi 2012;47:646-50.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Liu Y, Dai W, Dai X, Li Z. Prepregnancy body mass index and gestational weight gain with the outcome of pregnancy: A 13-year study of 292,568 cases in China. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012;286:905-11.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Ota E, Haruna M, Suzuki M, Anh DD, Tho le H, Tam NT, et al. Maternal body mass index and gestational weight gain and their association with perinatal outcomes in Viet Nam. Bull World Health Organ 2011;89:127-36.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Wong W, Tang NL, Lau TK, Wong TW. A new recommendation for maternal weight gain in Chinese women. J Am Diet Assoc 2000;100:791-6.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Radhakrishnan U, Kolar G, Nirmalan PK. Cross-sectional study of gestational weight gain and perinatal outcomes in pregnant women at a tertiary care center in Southern India. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2014;40:25-31.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Available from: http://www.wpro.who.int/nutrition/documents/docs/Redefiningobesity.pdf. [Last accessed on 2016 Oct 20].  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Available from: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs363/en/. [Last accessed on 2016 Dec 18].  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Paul VK, Deorari AK, Singh M. Management of low birth weight babies. In: Parthasarathy A, editor. IAP Textbook of Pediatrics. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers; 2002. p. 58-63.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Siega-Riz AM, Viswanathan M, Moos MK, Deierlein A, Mumford S, Knaack J, et al. A systematic review of outcomes of maternal weight gain according to the Institute of Medicine recommendations: Birthweight, fetal growth, and postpartum weight retention. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:339.e1-14.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Institute of Medicine (Subcommittees on Nutritional Status and Weight Gain during Pregnancy and Dietary Intake and Nutrient Supplements during Pregnancy, Committee on Nutritional Status during Pregnancy and Lactation, Food and Nutrition Board). Nutrition During Pregnancy: Part I, Weight Gain; Part II, Nutrient Supplements. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1990.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Black MH, Sacks DA, Xiang AH, Lawrence JM. The relative contribution of prepregnancy overweight and obesity, gestational weight gain, and IADPSG-defined gestational diabetes mellitus to fetal overgrowth. Diabetes Care 2013;36:56-62.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Oken E. Maternal and child obesity: The causal link. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2009;36:361-77, ix-x.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Beyerlein A, Schiessl B, Lack N, von Kries R. Optimal gestational weight gain ranges for the avoidance of adverse birth weight outcomes: A novel approach. Am J Clin Nutr 2009;90:1552-8.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Margerison Zilko CE, Rehkopf D, Abrams B. Association of maternal gestational weight gain with short- and long-term maternal and child health outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010;202:574.e1-8.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Hinkle SN, Sharma AJ, Dietz PM. Gestational weight gain in obese mothers and associations with fetal growth. Am J Clin Nutr 2010;92:644-51.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Lashen H, Fear K, Sturdee DW. Obesity is associated with increased risk of first trimester and recurrent miscarriage: Matched case-control study. Hum Reprod 2004;19:1644-6.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Weiss JL, Malone FD, Emig D, Ball RH, Nyberg DA, Comstock CH, et al. Obesity, obstetric complications and cesarean delivery rate – A population-based screening study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;190:1091-7.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Committee opinion number 315, September 2005. Obesity in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2005;106:671-5.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Orskou J, Kesmodel U, Henriksen TB, Secher NJ. An increasing proportion of infants weigh more than 4000 grams at birth. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2001;80:931-6.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Schummers L, Hutcheon JA, Bodnar LM, Lieberman E, Himes KP. Risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes by prepregnancy body mass index: A population-based study to inform prepregnancy weight loss counseling. Obstet Gynecol 2015;125:133-43.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Swank ML, Caughey AB, Farinelli CK, Main EK, Melsop KA, Gilbert WM, et al. The impact of change in pregnancy body mass index on macrosomia. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2014;22:1997-2002.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Edwards LE, Hellerstedt WL, Alton IR, Story M, Himes JH. Pregnancy complications and birth outcomes in obese and normal-weight women: Effects of gestational weight change. Obstet Gynecol 1996;87:389-94.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Graham LE, Brunner Huber LR, Thompson ME, Ersek JL. Does amount of weight gain during pregnancy modify the association between obesity and cesarean section delivery? Birth 2014;41:93-9.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Seligman LC, Duncan BB, Branchtein L, Gaio DS, Mengue SS, Schmidt MI. Obesity and gestational weight gain: Cesarean delivery and labor complications. Rev Saude Publica 2006;40:457-65.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Zhong Y, Cahill AG, Macones GA, Zhu F, Odibo AO. The association between prepregnancy maternal body mass index and preterm delivery. Am J Perinatol 2010;27:293-8.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Hendler I, Goldenberg RL, Mercer BM, Iams JD, Meis PJ, Moawad AH, et al. The Preterm Prediction Study: Association between maternal body mass index and spontaneous and indicated preterm birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:882-6.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Masho SW, Bishop DL, Munn M. Pre-pregnancy BMI and weight gain: Where is the tipping point for preterm birth? BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013;13:120.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Jeric M, Roje D, Medic N, Strinic T, Mestrovic Z, Vulic M. Maternal pre-pregnancy underweight and fetal growth in relation to institute of medicine recommendations for gestational weight gain. Early Hum Dev 2013;89:277-81.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Yu Z, Han S, Zhu J, Sun X, Ji C, Guo X. Pre-pregnancy body mass index in relation to infant birth weight and offspring overweight/obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2013;8:e61627.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Wills AK, Chinchwadkar MC, Joglekar CV, Natekar AS, Yajnik CS, Fall CH, et al. Maternal and paternal height and BMI and patterns of fetal growth: The Pune Maternal Nutrition Study. Early Hum Dev 2010;86:535-40.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Thorsdottir I, Torfadottir JE, Birgisdottir BE, Geirsson RT. Weight gain in women of normal weight before pregnancy: Complications in pregnancy or delivery and birth outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2002;99(5 Pt 1):799-806.  Back to cited text no. 41
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]


This article has been cited by
1 Gestational Weight Gain among Healthy Pregnant Women from Asia in Comparison with Institute of Medicine (IOM) Guidelines-2009: A Systematic Review
Priyanka Arora,Bani Tamber Aeri
Journal of Pregnancy. 2019; 2019: 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Insights on Medical Nutrition Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: An Indian Perspective
Vijay Viswanathan,Dharini Krishnan,Sanjay Kalra,Rajeev Chawla,Mangesh Tiwaskar,Banshi Saboo,Manash Baruah,Subhankar Chowdhury,B. M. Makkar,Shalini Jaggi
Advances in Therapy. 2019; 36(3): 520
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Prenatal arsenic exposure, child marriage, and pregnancy weight gain: Associations with preterm birth in Bangladesh
Mohammad L. Rahman,Molly L. Kile,Ema G. Rodrigues,Linda Valeri,Anita Raj,Maitreyi Mazumdar,Golam Mostofa,Quazi Quamruzzaman,Mahmudur Rahman,Russ Hauser,Andrea Baccarelli,Liming Liang,David C. Christiani
Environment International. 2018; 112: 23
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

   Abstract Introduction Methodology Results Discussion Conclusions Article Figures Article Tables
  In this article
 References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2126    
    Printed12    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded480    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal