A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of two proxies for the preconception weight using data from a pre-pregnancy cohort in Benin: Weight measured in the first trimester of pregnancy vs estimated by Thomas' formula. | LitMetric

Accurate determination of pre-pregnancy weight is essential for optimal pregnancy monitoring and antenatal care. Determining pre-pregnancy weight in limited-resources settings is challenging for both clinical practice and public health research. From a 2014-2017 pre-pregnancy cohort in Benin, we evaluated the agreement between the measured pre-pregnancy weight (MPPW) and two proxies: (i) the first trimester pregnancy weight (FTPW) and (ii) the estimated pre-pregnancy weight (EPPW) using Thomas & al. formula. We analysed data from 302 pregnant women with both pre-pregnancy weight measured within 3 months before conception and weight measured during the first trimester. Using segmented linear regression, we first assessed up to which gestational age the weight measured during the first trimester could reasonably estimate the MPPW. Then the Bland & Altman method was used to assess agreement between MPPW and the two proxies. Additional analyses were performed to assess the sensitivity of results to the timing of measurement of either MPPW or the two proxies. On average, FTPW did not feature significant difference with MPPW up to 13.03 (11.99-14.06) weeks of gestational age. FTPW, measured on average at 7 ± 2.4 weeks of gestation, and the EPPW showed similar Bland & Altman limits of agreement with the MPPW. However, while the FTPW slightly underestimated the MPPW by a mean of-0.16 (-0.08; +0.39) kg, the EPPW overestimated it by a mean of + 0.43 (+0.20; +0.66) kg. Minor differences in these results were observed when the MPPW was assessed earlier or within three months before pregnancy, or according to the gestational age at the time of the proxy's measurement. In conclusion, in Southern Benin and up to 12-14 weeks of pregnancy, the FTPW appeared to be a good proxy of the MPPW while using Thomas' formula did not enhance pre-pregnancy weight estimation.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11534216PMC
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0312840PLOS

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

pre-pregnancy weight
24
weight measured
16
measured trimester
12
mppw proxies
12
gestational age
12
weight
11
mppw
9
pre-pregnancy
8
pre-pregnancy cohort
8
cohort benin
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!