Journal of Obesity

Review Article

Maternal Weight Gain in Pregnancy and Risk of Obesity among Offspring: A Systematic Review

Table 2

Methodological quality assessment of included cohort studies.
  Li et al. [38] Oken, et al. 2007 [25] Gillman et al. [35] Oken, et al. 2008 [41] Wrotniak et al. [47] Oken, et al. 2009 [40] Olson et al. [42, 50] Steube et al. [46] Fraser et al. [23] Magerison Zilko et al. [31] Schack-Nielsen et al. [44] Andersen et al. [32] Branum et al. [33] Lawlor et al. [37] Rooney et al. [43] Ensenauer et al. [34] Hinkle et al. [36] Laitinen et al. [24] Lindberg et al. [49] Magerison-Zilko et al. [39] Stamens-Køpp et al. [45] Ehrenthal et al. [48]
(1) Description of background  
Presented in context of previous research, hypothesis clearly described.  
✓: 2 elements, O: 1 element, and X: 0 element presented		✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓
(2) Sample definition  
Explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria, uniform application of criteria, clear description of recruitment strategy and participant’s characteristics, power analysis, or some other basis noted for determining the adequacy of study sample size.  
✓: >3 or more elements, O: 2 or 3 elements,  and
X: <2 elements presented		✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓
(3) Description of gestational weight gain  
Clearly described prepregnancy weight and prenatal weight.
✓: ≥2 elements, O: 1 element, and X: 0 element details described 		✓O✓✓✓OOX✓✓O✓O✓✓✓✓✓XOX✓
(4) Description of child body weight  
Clearly defined child body weight outcome and described definition for overweight/obesity.
✓: ≥2 elements presented, O: moderately or very clear definition of weight gain, and X: poor definition of child body weight outcome 		✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓
(5) Soundness of information on GWG.  
Quality of source of information on
GWG ✓: objective measures, O: self-report with validation, and X: Self-report 		X XXXXX✓X✓OXXX✓XXXXXXXO
(6) Soundness of information 
Quality of source of information on child body weight outcome.
✓: objective measures, O: parental-reported, and X: self-report		✓✓X X✓✓X✓✓O✓O✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓O✓
(7) Description on reduction of the final sample 
Adequate reporting on loss to follow-up and the number of participants at each stage of study.  
✓: both elements, O: 1 element, and X: 0 elements details described		✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓
(8) Analysis comparability 
Adequately accounted for withdrawals, lost to follow-up, and missing data in the analysis, appropriate statistical methods were used for main analysis and adjustment of potential confounders.
✓: all elements clearly presented, O: some presented, and X: neither element present		✓✓✓✓✓O✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓
(9) Interpretation of results 
Results interpreted appropriately based on study design and statistics, clinically useful, appropriate presentation, present in the context of prior research, and conclusion supported by results.  
✓: all elements clearly present, O: any other score, and X: conclusion not supported by results		✓✓✓✓✓O✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓✓
Overall quality 
(i) High (H): ≥ 6 good rating (✓) AND zero poor rating (X)
(ii) Medium (M): <6 good ratings (✓) OR ≥6 good ratings (✓) and ≤2 poor ratings (X)
(iii) Low (L): ≥3 poor ratings (X) OR any other score		MMMMMMMMHMMMMHMMMMMMMH
Notes: ✓ = good; O = fair; and X = poor.