Abstract
Cross-sectional studies of total gestational weight gain (GWG) and perinatal outcomes have used different approaches to operationalize GWG and adjust for duration of gestation. Using birth records from California (2007-2017), Nevada (2010-2017), and Oregon (2008-2017), we compared 3 commonly used approaches to estimate associations between GWG and cesarean delivery, small-for-gestational-age birth, and low birth weight (LBW): 1) the Institute of Medicine-recommended GWG ranges at a given gestational week, 2) total weight gain categories directly adjusting for gestational age as a covariate, and 3) weight-gain-for-gestational-age z scores derived from an external longitudinal reference population. Among 5,461,130 births, the 3 methods yielded similar conclusions for cesarean delivery and small-for-gestational-age birth. However, for LBW, some associations based on z scores were in the opposite direction of methods 1 and 2, paradoxically suggesting that higher GWG increases risk of LBW. This was due to a greater proportion of preterm births among those with high z scores, and controlling for gestational age in the z score model brought the results in line with the other methods. We conclude that the use of externally derived GWG z scores based on ongoing pregnancies can yield associations confounded by duration of pregnancy when the outcome is strongly associated with gestational age at delivery.