The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Medically advised, mother's personal target, and actual weight gain during pregnancy
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether advice on pregnancy weight gain from health care professionals, women's target weight gain (how much weight women thought they should gain), and actual weight gain corresponded with the 1990 Institute of Medicine recommendations. METHODS: Predominantly white, middle-class women participating in a mail panel reported their prepregnancy weights, heights, and advised and target weight gains on a prenatal questionnaire (n = 2237), and their actual weight gains on a neonatal questionnaire (n = 1661). Recommended weight gains were categorized for women with low body mass index (BMI) (less than 19.8 kg/m2) as 25-39 lb; for women with average BMI (19.8-26.0 kg/m2) as 25-34 lb; and for women with high BMI (more than 26.0-29.0 kg/m2) and very high BMI (more than 29.0 kg/m2) as 15-24 lb. RESULTS: Twenty-seven percent of the women reported that they had received no medical advice about pregnancy weight gain. Among those who received advice, 14% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12%, 16%) had been advised to gain less than the recommended range and 22% (95% CI 20%, 24%) had been advised to gain more than recommended. The odds of being advised to gain more than recommended were higher among women with high BMIs and with very high BMIs compared with women with average BMIs. Black women were more likely than white women to report advice to gain less than recommended. Advised and target weight gains were associated strongly with actual weight gain. Receiving no advice was associated with weight gain outside the recommendations. CONCLUSION: Greater efforts are required to improve medical advice about weight gain during pregnancy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The importance of assessing the fit of logistic regression models: a case study.
Hosmer, D. W., Taber, S., & Lemeshow, S. (1991) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.81.12.1630 · Cited by 496
Cited by
Pregnancy: a “teachable moment” for weight control and obesity prevention
Phelan, S. (2010) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2009.06.008 · Cited by 637
Diet or exercise, or both, for preventing excessive weight gain in pregnancy
Muktabhant, B., Lawrie, T. A., Lumbiganon, P., & Laopaiboon, M. (2015) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007145.pub3 · Cited by 601
New guidelines for weight gain during pregnancy: what obstetrician/gynecologists should know
Rasmussen, K. M., Catalano, P. M., & Yaktine, A. L. (2009) · Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/gco.0b013e328332d24e · Cited by 527
Stillbirths: the way forward in high-income countries
Flenady, V., Middleton, P., Smith, G. C., Duke, W., Erwich, J. J., Khong, T. Y., Neilson, J., Ezzati, M., Koopmans, L., Ellwood, D., et al. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60064-0 · Cited by 490
Infant Feeding Practices Study II: Study Methods
Fein, S. B., Labiner-Wolfe, J., Shealy, K. R., Li, R., Chen, J., & Grummer-Strawn, L. M. (2008) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2008-1315c · Cited by 419
Metadata
- Authors
- Cogswell, M.
- Venue
- Obstetrics & Gynecology
- Published
- 1999-10
- Volume
- 94
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 616-622
- ISSN
- 0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1972682485
- Cited by
- 224
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 1.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Medically advised, mother's personal target, and actual weight gain during pregnancy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00375-0
- The paper
- Cogswell, M. (1999). Medically advised, mother's personal target, and actual weight gain during pregnancy. Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00375-0
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.