Maternal body mass index and pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and metaanalysis
Abstract
Objective data The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of body mass index category on pregnancy outcomes. Study Five databases (Medline, Embase, PubMed, www.clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane) were searched from inception until February 2019 for English or French publications that reported on pregnancy outcomes in women with body mass index ≥30 kg/m 2. Reference lists of included articles were searched, and authors were contacted for missing data where necessary. Because no randomized trials were identified, we included single-center and population-based cohort studies that stratified pregnancy outcomes under the following body mass index categories: underweight, standard weight, overweight, and obese classes I-III, based on the World Health Organization international classification system. Study appraisal and synthesis methods Study quality was appraised with the use of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale Quality Assessment Scale for cohort studies. Because significant heterogeneity was anticipated among studies, we used random-effects metaanalysis to arrive at pooled estimates and 95% confidence intervals for pregnancy outcomes in each body mass index category and relative risks in relation to women with a standard body mass index. Results We identified 10,258 studies, of which 13 studies with a low risk-of-bias that described 3,722,477 pregnancies that were included in the metaanalysis. Most adverse pregnancy outcomes increased steadily with increasing body mass index category. Compared with women with body mass index 18.5-24.9 kg/m 2, women with body mass index >40 kg/m 2 were at increased risk for gestational diabetes mellitus [17% vs 3.9%; relative risk, 4.6 [95% confidence interval, 3.6-5.9]), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (15.9% vs 3.5%; relative risk, 4.6 [95% confidence interval, 3.4-6.0]), and cesarean delivery (47.7% vs 26.0%; relative risk, 1.86 [95% confidence interval, 1.75-1.97]). Babies were at increased risk for hypoglycemia (4.1% vs 1.4%; relative risk, 3.3 [95% confidence interval, 2.8-3.8]), macrosomia (12.9% vs 6.2%; relative risk, 2.6 [95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.7]), infection (2.8% vs 1.3%; relative risk, 2.3 [95% confidence interval, 1.6-3.3]), birth trauma (1.3% vs 0.9%; relative risk, 2.1 [95% confidence interval, 1.2-3.8]), respiratory distress (5.1% vs 2.7%; relative risk, 2.0 [95% confidence interval, 1.8-2.2]), death (1.4% vs 0.9%; relative risk, 1.8 [95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.9]), and neonatal intensive care unit admission (13.5% vs 9.5%; relative risk, 1.6 [95% confidence interval, 1.4-1.9]). Conclusion There is a linear association between maternal body mass index and almost all adverse pregnancy outcomes. These risks, stratified by body mass index category as presented in this article, would facilitate counselling and encourage appropriate interventions to improve outcomes for mothers and babies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The most likely intervention in labour for obese women is caesarean section (both elective and emergency).
“The most likely intervention is caesarean section (both elective and emergency). 58 , 87”
From Overweight, obesity and excessive weight gain in pregnancy as risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes: A narrative review (2022) · cites this paper as [87]
Cites
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 · Cited by 10,578 · see citing works
Practice Bulletin No. 183: postpartum hemorrhage
(2017) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000002351 · Cited by 1,406 · see citing works
Closing the Gap between Methodologists and End-Users: <i>R</i> as a Computational Back-End
Wallace, B. C., Dahabreh, I. J., Trikalinos, T. A., Lau, J., Trow, P., & Schmid, C. H. (2012) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v049.i05 · Cited by 1,125 · see citing works
Schummers, L., Hutcheon, J. A., Bodnar, L. M., Lieberman, E., & Himes, K. P. (2015) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000000591 · Cited by 360 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Langley‐Evans, S. C., Pearce, J., & Ellis, S. (2022) · Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics · doi:10.1111/jhn.12999 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
- Authors
- D’Souza, R., Horyn, I., Pavalagantharajah, S., Zaffar, N., & Jacob, C.-E.
- Affiliations
- Mount Sinai Hospital (CA)
- Venue
- American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-11
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 100041
- ISSN
- 2589-9333 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2970107481
- Cited by
- 150
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 1.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy and preeclampsia studies
- Keywords
- maternal obesity, body mass index, pregnancy outcomes, gestational diabetes mellitus, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, cesarean section, neonatal hypoglycemia, macrosomia, neonatal infection, preterm birth, low birth weight, maternal underweight, overweight in pregnancy, maternal mortality, perinatal mortality, maternal morbidity
- MeSH terms
- Cesarean Section, Female, Fetal Macrosomia, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Body Mass Index, Diabetes, Gestational
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review