Quality Appraisal of Nutritional Guidelines to Prevent, Diagnose, and Treat Malnutrition in All Its Forms during Pregnancy

Abstract

This work aimed to identify clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that include recommendations for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of women’s malnutrition during pregnancy and to evaluate the quality of these guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument. We conducted a literature review using PubMed and different websites from January 2009 to February 2021. The quality of the CPGs was independently assessed by reviewers using the AGREE II instrument, which defines guidelines scoring >70% in the overall assessment as “high quality”. The analysis included 43 guidelines. Among the main findings, we identified that only half of the CPGs (51.1%) obtained a final “high quality” evaluation. AGREE II results varied widely across domains and categories. The two domains that obtained the highest scores were scope and purpose with 88.3% (range 39 to 100%) and clarity of presentation with 87.2% (range 25 to 100%). Among the “high quality” CPGs, the best scores were achieved by the three guidelines published by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Due to the importance of maternal nutrition in pregnancy, it is essential to join forces to improve the quality of the guidelines, especially in CPGs that do not meet the reference standards for quality.

1. Introduction

Maternal nutrition crucially contributes to the offspring’s health and future generations. Studies in animals and humans have observed adverse developmental processes around conception in response to various environmental situations. The quality of the maternal diet, undernutrition, overweight, obesity, and physiological aspects related to glucose and lipid metabolism alteration may affect the embryo’s potential with consequences for risk of diseases in the short and long term [1].

Prepregnancy obesity is related to several adverse perinatal outcomes, with the risks increasing as the body mass index increases [2]. Regarding the newborn’s nutritional status, due to a proinflammatory status, metabolism alterations in preconception, and other factors, a woman with obesity may have a baby who is large for gestational age. These preconception conditions may also influence placental function and increase the risk of preeclampsia, intrauterine growth restriction, and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) [3]. Likewise, women with prepregnancy obesity have a higher probability of excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) and postpartum weight retention [4].

In the same way, the effect of maternal malnutrition is well known. Even though there is a smaller proportion of underweight women worldwide, these proportions are higher in low- and middle-income countries. Women with prepregnancy underweight have a greater probability of having a baby with inadequate fetal growth. These phenotypes may have a detrimental impact on children in their forthcoming years of schooling, educational performance, and health [5].

Women with micronutrient deficiencies before pregnancy, such as iron, folate, iodine, zinc, selenium, and vitamin B complex, are at a greater risk of having these deficiencies during pregnancy as their micronutrient requirements increase to promote adequate fetal development and growth. Deficiencies in critical micronutrients throughout the periconceptional period may affect maternal and offspring health, resulting in early reproductive failure, poor placental vascularization, inadequate fetal brain development, and poor fetal growth. Poor-quality diet intake or altered absorption due to infection, diseases, or inflammation could explain these nutrient deficiencies [6].

Conditions such as inadequate GWG, GDM, and hypertension disorders during pregnancy might influence fetal growth and women’s health. Systematic reviews have shown promising results in promoting adequate GWG and glycemic control by following nutrition and lifestyle recommendations during pregnancy [7,8]. In addition, observational studies have reported positive results in preventing hypertensive disorders, low birth weight, and preterm birth in women with better diet quality indices compared to women with lower dietary quality scores [9,10,11].

The problems of malnutrition mentioned above highlight the need to offer pregnant women food, nutrition, and lifestyle guidelines. International organizations prioritize maternal nutrition in the national public health plan to support a healthy pregnancy. However, women’s adherence to nutrition guidelines during pregnancy appears to be below the recommended level [12]. Several sociodemographic factors may influence guideline adherence, although the quality of the recommendations could also affect adherence due to the lack of clear evidence for health professionals to issue these recommendations.

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are proper instruments to implement evidence-based guidelines for patients. However, few studies have evaluated the quality of pregnancy guidelines using a specific methodology. This paper aims to identify CPGs that include recommendations for preventing, diagnosing, and treating women’s malnutrition during pregnancy and to evaluate the quality of these guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Eligibility Criteria

We thoroughly searched CPGs containing nutritional and lifestyle recommendations to prevent, diagnose, and treat all forms of malnutrition during pregnancy. We followed the framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley [13] and further developed by Levac et al. [14] and the Joanna Briggs Institute [15]. This review process consisted of five stages: (i) identifying the research question; (ii) identifying relevant studies; (iii) study selection; (iv) charting the data; and (v) collating, summarizing, and reporting results. We added an extra step of (vi) critical appraisal using the AGREE II instrument [16].

The inclusion criteria considered international and national CPGs, consensus, expert opinion based on evidence, and standard references with recommendations on nutritional assessment (behavior, anthropometric, biochemical, clinical evaluation, and lifestyle), healthy diet, dietary modifications, nutritional supplementation, or any nutritional or lifestyle recommendation given in primary healthcare facilities. We excluded opinions, editorials, articles published as communication tools, and CPGs with lifestyle and nutrition recommendations oriented to a specific pathology or associated complications.

2.2. Search Strategy and Studies Selection

We performed a systematic literature search in the database PubMed (https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed, accessed on 10 February 2021) and a manual search of guideline-related websites, limiting the search to studies published between January 2009 and February 2021. The selection of this time frame considered the review and update of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations for weight gain during pregnancy that included ways to encourage their adoption through strategies to assist practitioners with the publication of the “Weight Gain During Pregnancy: Reexamining the Guidelines” in 2009 [17].

For the PubMed search, we used keywords such as pregnancy; pregnancy trimester, first; nutrition assessment; prevention and control; and malnutrition. We followed a Boolean search using search filters to identify any guidelines in English or Spanish (see Table 1). For the guideline-related websites, we selected international agencies and gynecology, obstetrics, and maternal nutrition societies as well as databases from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE; UK) and Guidelines International Network (GIN). Key terms of the algorithm were used alone or in combination. We imported all studies identified through the database and the website search to Excel. We checked for and removed duplicates.

2.3. Quality Assessment

Authors, including dietitians and physicians, participated in the evaluation process. Two authors (CMM and MAM) independently assessed each study’s title and abstract to determine the references’ eligibility. In case of disagreement, another author (SBM) evaluated the guide. Several health professionals (CMA, GAC, JMC, KMS, LIG, LTC, MAM, MPC, NSG, SES, AT, BSM, CMM, FAA, and SHC) conducted a peer review to assess the full text of the potentially eligible documents in order to determine if they meet the inclusion criteria. In case of disagreement, a third author (AT, BSM, CMM, GAC, MPC, and SBM) was responsible to decide whether or not to include it.

We used the AGREE II tool to assess the quality of the selected CPGs. This instrument aims to identify the quality guidelines and their strengths and limitations and consists of 23 key items grouped into six domains: (1) scope and purpose (related to the overall aim of the guideline); (2) stakeholder involvement (measures the extent to which the appropriate stakeholders developed the guideline); (3) rigor of development (concerned with the process used to gather and synthesize the evidence); (4) clarity of presentation (appraises the language, structure, and format of the guideline); (5) applicability (related to the implications of applying the guideline); and (6) editorial independence (evaluates that the formulation of recommendations is unbiased with competing interests) followed by 2 global rating items (“overall assessment”). The evaluation of each item uses a 7-point Likert rating scale (from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree), as defined in the AGREE II user’s manual [16].

The overall scores of each domain were calculated by adding their corresponding items and scaling the total as a proportion of the maximum possible score for that domain (max score = 100). The overall assessment requires the user to make a judgment as to the quality of the guideline, taking into account the criteria considered in the assessment process. The user is also asked whether he/she would recommend use of the guideline. A score of >70% indicates “high quality” in the guidelines as determined by the AGREE II user’s manual [16].

Due to time restrictions, only two authors (BSM, LTC, NRM, SES, AT, FAA, JMC, LIG, and MAM) independently evaluated the quality of each CPG using the online AGREE platform, “My AGREE PLUS”, which is suggested by the AGREE II methodology.

2.4. Data Analysis

Means and median scores were calculated in each AGREE II domain to identify the most critical domains across the different guidelines. The overall quality evaluation of each guideline used a threshold of 70% for the final score of each domain. We used Microsoft Excel 2021, version 16.57, for data collection and extraction.

3. Results

Figure 1 provides the PRISMA flow diagram [18] with a detailed summary of the research results. We identified 82 records through the search. After removing duplicated studies, the abstracts of 79 records were screened, leading to 54 CPGs for full review and, finally, 43 for quality assessment.

Table 2 shows the general characteristics of the analyzed CPGs. Regarding geographical distribution, 35% of the reviewed guidelines corresponded to the North America Region, with guidelines from Canada (n = 9) and the USA (n = 6), while 37% were from Europe and the Central Asia region, with contribution from the United Kingdom (n = 9), Poland (n = 2), Italy (n = 1), Spain (n = 1), France (n = 1), and Europe region (n = 2). The regions with the lowest number of CPGs reviewed were East Asia and the Pacific, with two CPGs from Australia and the Middle East and North Africa and one CPG from the United Arab Emirates. Finally, we included nine international CPGs (21%).

Concerning the type of recommendations in the reviewed CPGs, 86% had recommendations related to prevention, 56% corresponded to diagnosis, and 27% related to treatment (Table 2) of any form of malnutrition during pregnancy.

3.1. Quality of Guidelines According to the AGREE II Domains

Table 3 reports the total score (mean and median) for each domain and the final quality evaluation of all CPGs. Only 51.1% of CPGs obtained a final evaluation of “high quality” with four or more domains reaching a score higher than 70%. Among the “high quality” CPGs, “Antenatal care for uncomplicated pregnancies” (NICE, 2019) [44] had the best score with >90% in all domains, while “Guideline: daily iron supplementation in adult women and adolescent girls” (World Health Organization (WHO), 2016) [54] and “Guideline: vitamin A supplementation in pregnant women” (WHO,2011) [58] both scored >80% in all six domains.

On the other hand, a CPG published by Bomba-Opoń (2017) [23] and another one published by the American Dietetic Association (ADA), American Society of Nutrition (ASN), Siega-Riz, A.M., King, J.C. (2019) [21] obtained the lowest scores with 17 and 25% of total average, respectively.

When looking more thoroughly at domain scores, the highest domain scores were for “scope and purpose” (domain 1) with a mean score of 88.3% (range 39 to 100%) and “clarity of presentation” (domain 4) with a mean score of 87.2% (range 25 to 100%). Meanwhile, the lowest values were for “applicability” (domain 5) with a mean score of 67.8% (range 4 to 100%) and “rigor and development” (domain 3) with a mean score of 74.3% (range 10 to 100%).

Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the mean and median quality scores of each domain in the guidelines graded as high and low quality.

3.1.1. Scope and Purpose Domain

Domain 1 had the highest results with a mean of 88.3% (range 39 to 100%) and a median of 89% (range 39 to 100%). Moreover, 30.2% (n = 13) of the guidelines had a maximum score of 100%. Only one guideline presented a score below 50%, which was the Bomba-Opoń (2017) guideline [23] with 39%.

3.1.2. Stakeholder Involvement

The mean score in domain 2 was 75.4% (range 28 to 100%), and the median was 83% (range 28 to 100%). Only 67.4% (n = 29) of the guidelines received scores higher than 70%. The guideline published by Maxwell, C. (2017) [41] and those by NICE in 2010 [45] and 2020 [46] had the highest scores (100% each). The Bomba-Opoń guideline [23] scored the lowest score of 28%.

3.1.3. Rigor of Development

Regarding domain 3, the best score was 100% (range 10 to 100%), which was obtained by Maxwell, C. (2019) [40] and NICE (2019) [44]. In contrast, the lowest scores were 21 and 22% for the guidelines by ADA, ASN, Siega-Riz, A.M., and King, J.C. [21] and Bomba-Opoń [23], respectively.

3.1.4. Clarity of Presentation

The mean score in domain 4 was the second highest with 87.2% (range 25 to 100%). Only 27.9% (n = 12) of the guidelines had a high score (100%). In contrast, the guidelines of Cetin, I. [24] and Donnay, S. [30] obtained the lowest scores of 25 and 42%, respectively.

3.1.5. Applicability

Domain 5 had the worst result, with the lowest mean score of 67.8% (range 4 to 100%) and a median of 73% (range 4 to 100%). Only 51.1% (n = 22) of the reviewed guidelines obtained a score >70%, and 25.5% (n = 11) had a score below or equal to 50%. The WHO guidelines [55,57] received a high score of 100%. Once again, the guidelines by Bomba-Opoń [23] and ADA, ASN, Siega-Riz, A.M., and King, J.C. [21] obtained the lowest scores with 4 and 25%, respectively.

3.1.6. Editorial Independence

For domain 6, the mean score was 75% (range 4 to 100%), and the median score was 92% (range 4 to 100%). Nine of the CPGs analyzed (20.9%) received a scores below or equal to 50%. Compared with the others, this domain obtained the lowest scores (e.g., Lausman, A. [38] obtained 4%, Ryan, K. [49] obtained 8%, and [23] also obtained 8%).

4. Discussion

The current study presents a rigorous review that explores the quality of 43 CPGs designed to prevent, diagnose, and treat malnutrition in pregnancy using the AGREE II tool. Among the main findings, we identified that only half of the CPGs (51.1%) obtained a final “high quality” evaluation with four or more domains reaching a score higher than 70%. The guidelines classified as high and low quality had a higher evaluation in the classifications of domain 1 “scope and purpose” (mean = 88.3%, range = 39–100%) and domain 4 “clarity of presentation” (main = 87.2%, range = 25–100%). The domains with the lowest score in both groups were “applicability” (mean = 67.8%, range = 4–100%), “rigor of development” (mean = 74.3.3%, range = 10–100%), and “editorial independence” (mean = 75.0%, range = 4–100%).

To our knowledge, there are few systematic reviews that have evaluated the quality of nutrition care guidelines in this population [62,63,64]. These systematic reviews focused mainly on the assessment of weight management guidelines. The findings published by all of them are consistent with ours. The quality of the guidelines regarding the “rigor of development” and “applicability” domains is poor. These observations impact the failure to establish recommendations in clinical practice and, consequently, to address malnutrition in all its forms in pregnant women. As international organizations recognize them, all the guidelines identified the objective and purpose of care in clinical practice. However, it is necessary to go beyond the purpose because clinical practice guidelines are developed to improve the medical decision-making process among health professionals [65]. Likewise, considering other nutrition indicators, such as food intake, diet quality, and nutrition biomarkers, to assess clinical nutrition guidelines may improve patient-centered antenatal care.

Pregnancy is a unique time for identifying, preventing, and correcting any form of malnutrition in women, which may impact the health of the next generation. This opportunity is of utmost importance as this is a sensitive time, and most countries integrate antenatal care into universal health access. Dietary interventions to promote a healthy diet during pregnancy are part of the double-duty actions suggested by a group of experts to end malnutrition in all its form by 2030 [66]. However, from a nutrition care approach, it is recommended that the nutrition care process be followed to establish specific and evidence-based dietary interventions for each person. In this context, researchers and professionals should strengthen the nutrition methodology in research studies and consider the best evidence-based clinical nutrition practice guidelines.

Assessment of the quality of CPGs is relevant in the clinical field and for formulating and implementing programs and interventions to improve the quality of care and the population’s nutritional status. We recommend that guideline developers, clinicians, researchers, and policymakers consider and use the AGREE II instrument as it is detailed and easy to apply in situations of poor nutrition in pregnant women and other clinical conditions [64]. In addition, this tool allows critical evaluation before implementation, which would support decision-making around the health system of a country or region and even during emergencies.

Maternal nutritional status during pregnancy plays a critical role in fetal growth and development, contributing to the offspring’s health and future maternal health; therefore, improving the quality of the domains with lower scores is essential. Enhancing the quality of CPGs could improve nutritional care during this life stage and the health of mothers and their offspring across generations. Due to the importance of maternal nutrition in pregnancy, it is essential to join forces to improve the quality of the guidelines, especially CPGs that need to meet the reference standards for quality.

Competing interests

Conflicts of InterestThe authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Fleming T.P., Watkins A.J., Velazquez M.A., Mathers J.C., Prentice A.M., Stephenson J. et al. Origins of Lifetime Health Around the Time of Conception: Causes and Consequences. Lancet. 2018 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30312-X PubMed
2. Santos S., Voerman E., Amiano P., Barros H., Beilin L.J., Bergström A. et al. Impact of maternal body mass index and gestational weight gain on pregnancy complications: An individual participant data meta-analysis of European, North American and Australian cohorts. BJOG Int. J. Obs. Gynaecol.. 2019 doi:10.1111/1471-0528.15661 PubMed
3. Poston L., Caleyachetty R., Cnattingius S., Corvalán C., Uauy R., Herring S. et al. Preconceptional and maternal obesity: Epidemiology and health consequences. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol.. 2016 doi:10.1016/S2213-8587(16)30217-0 PubMed
4. Nehring I., Schmoll S., Beyerlein A., Hauner H., Von Kries R.. Gestational weight gain and long-term postpartum weight retention. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.. 2011 doi:10.3945/ajcn.111.015289 PubMed
5. Victora C.G., Adair L., Fall C., Hallal P.C., Martorell R., Richter L. et al. Maternal and child undernutrition: Consequences for adult health and human capital. Lancet. 2008 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61692-4 PubMed
6. Bailey R.L., West K.P., Black R.E.. The epidemiology of global micronutrient deficiencies. Ann. Nutr. Metab.. 2015 doi:10.1159/000371618 PubMed
7. Effect of diet and physical activity based interventions in pregnancy on gestational weight gain and pregnancy outcomes: Meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials. BMJ. 2017 doi:10.1136/bmj.j3119 PubMed
8. Yamamoto J.M., Kellett J.E., Balsells M., García-Patterson A., Hadar E., Solà I. et al. Gestational diabetes mellitus and diet: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials examining the impact of modified dietary interventions on maternal glucose control and neonatal birth weight. Diabetes Care. 2018 doi:10.2337/dc18-0102 PubMed
9. Ancira-Moreno M., O’Neill M.S., Rivera-Dommarco J.Á., Batis C., Rodríguez-Ramírez S., Sánchez B.N. et al. Dietary patterns and diet quality during pregnancy and low birthweight: The PRINCESA cohort. Matern. Child Nutr.. 2020 doi:10.1111/mcn.12972 PubMed
10. Gete D.G., Waller M., Mishra G.D.. Effects of maternal diets on preterm birth and low birth weight: A systematic review. Br. J. Nutr.. 2020 doi:10.1017/S0007114519002897 PubMed
11. Li M., Grewal J., Hinkle S.N., Yisahak S.F., Grobman W.A., Newman R.B. et al. Healthy dietary patterns and common pregnancy complications: A prospective and longitudinal study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.. 2021 doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqab145 PubMed
12. Caut C., Leach M., Steel A.. Dietary guideline adherence during preconception and pregnancy: A systematic review. Matern. Child Nutr.. 2020 doi:10.1111/mcn.12916 PubMed
13. Arksey H., O’Malley L.. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. Theory Pract.. 2005 doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616
14. Levac D., Colquhoun H., O’Brien K.K.. Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implement. Sci.. 2010 doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69 PubMed
15. Joana Briggs Institute Revewer’s Manual: 2015 Edition/Supplement. 2015
16. Brouwers M.C., Kho M.E., Browman G.P., Burgers J.S., Cluzeau F., Feder G. et al. AGREE II: Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in healthcare. Prev. Med.. 2010 doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.08.005 PubMed
17. Rasmussen K.M., Yaktine A.L.. Weight Gain During Pregnancy: Reexamining the Guidelines. 2009 PubMed
18. Page M.J., Moher D., Bossuyt P.M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T.C., Mulrow C.D. et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021 doi:10.1136/bmj.n160 PubMed
19. ACOG Practice Bulletin No 156: Obesity in Pregnancy. Obs. Gynecol.. 2015 doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001211 PubMed
20. 12. Management of diabetes in pregnancy. Diabetes Care.. 2015 doi:10.2337/dc15-S015 PubMed
21. Siega-Riz A.M., King J.C.. Position of the American Dietetic Association and American Society for Nutrition: Obesity, reproduction, and pregnancy outcomes. J. Am. Diet. Assoc.. 2009 doi:10.1016/j.jada.2009.03.020 PubMed
22. Clinical Practice Guidelines: Pregnancy Care. 2018
23. Bomba O.D., Hirnle L., Kalinka J., Seremak M.A.. Folate supplementation during the preconception period, pregnancy and puerperium. Polish Society of Gynecologists and Obstetricians Guidelines. Ginekol. Polska.. 2017 doi:10.5603/GP.a2017.0113 PubMed
24. Cetin I., Assandro P., Massari M., Sagone A., Gennaretti R., Donzelli G. et al. Breastfeeding during pregnancy: Position paper of the Italian Society of Perinatal Medicine and the Task Force on Breastfeeding, Ministry of Health, Italy. J. Hum. Lact.. 2014 doi:10.1177/0890334413514294 PubMed
25. Charzewska J., Chlebna-Sokół D., Chybicka A., Czech-Kowalska J., Dobrzańska A., Helwich E. et al. Recommendations of prophylaxis of vitamin D deficiency in Poland (2009). Med. Wieku Rozw.. 2010 PubMed
26. Modder J., Fitzsimons K.. Management of women with obesity in pregnancy. CMACE/RCOG Joint Guideline. 2010
27. Davies G.A.L., Maxwell C., McLeod L., Gagnon R., Basso M., Bos H. et al. SOGC Clinical Practice Guidelines: Obesity in pregnancy. No. 239, February 2010. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet.. 2010 doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.03.008 PubMed
28. Davies G.A.L., Maxwell C., McLeod L.. No. 239-Obesity in Pregnancy. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can.. 2018 doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2018.05.018 PubMed
29. Denison F.C., Aedla N.R., Keag O., Hor K., Reynolds R.M., Milne A. et al. Care of Women with Obesity in Pregnancy. BJOG. 2018 doi:10.1111/1471-0528.15386 PubMed
30. Donnay S., Arena J., Lucas A., Velasco I., Ares S.. Iodine supplementation during pregnancy and lactation. Position statement of the working group on disorders related to iodine deficiency and thyroid dysfunction of the Spanish Society of Endocrinology and Nutrition. Endocrinol. Nutr.. 2014 doi:10.1016/j.endonu.2013.05.004 PubMed
31. Fitzsimons K.J., Modder J.. Setting maternity care standards for women with obesity in pregnancy. Semin. Fetal Neonatal Med.. 2010 doi:10.1016/j.siny.2009.09.004 PubMed
32. Fleming N., O’Driscoll T., Becker G., Spitzer R.F.. Adolescent Pregnancy Guidelines. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can.. 2015 doi:10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30180-8 PubMed
33. Haq A., Wimalawansa S.J., Pludowski P., Anouti F.A.. Clinical practice guidelines for vitamin D in the United Arab Emirates. J. Steroid Biochem Mol. Biol.. 2018 doi:10.1016/j.jsbmb.2016.09.021 PubMed
34. Harden C.L., Pennell P.B., Koppel B.S., Hovinga C.A., Gidal B., Meador K.J. et al. American Epilepsy Society. Practice parameter update: Management issues for women with epilepsy--focus on pregnancy (an evidence-based review): Vitamin K, folic acid, blood levels, and breastfeeding: Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee and Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and American Epilepsy Society. Neurology. 2009 doi:10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181a6b325 PubMed
35. Homer C.S., Oats J., Middleton P., Ramson J., Diplock S.. Updated clinical practice guidelines on pregnancy care. Med. J. Aust.. 2018 doi:10.5694/mja18.00286 PubMed
36. Jacob C.M., Killeen S.L., McAuliffe F.M., Stephenson J., Hod M., Diaz-Yamal I. et al. Prevention of noncommunicable diseases by interventions in the preconception period: A FIGO position paper for action by healthcare practitioners. Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet.. 2020 doi:10.1002/ijgo.13331 PubMed
37. Koren G., Carey N., Gagnon R., Maxwell C., Nulman I., Senikas V.. Cancer chemotherapy and pregnancy. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can.. 2013 doi:10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30999-3 PubMed
38. Lausman A., Kingdom J.. Intrauterine growth restriction: Screening, diagnosis, and management. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can.. 2013 doi:10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30865-3 PubMed
39. Marsh J.C.W., Ball S.E., Cavenagh J., Darbyshire P., Dokal I., Gordon-Smith E.C. et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of aplastic anaemia. Br. J. Haematol.. 2009 doi:10.1111/j.1365-2141.2009.07842.x PubMed
40. Maxwell C., Gaudet L., Cassir G., Nowik C., Lynne M.L., Jacob C.E. et al. Guideline No. 391-Pregnancy and Maternal Obesity Part 1: Pre-conception and Prenatal Care. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can.. 2019 doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2019.03.026 PubMed
41. Maxwell C., Gaudet L., Cassir G., Nowik C., Lynne M.L., Jacob C.E. et al. Guideline No. 392-Pregnancy and Maternal Obesity Part 2: Team Planning for Delivery and Postpartum Care. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can.. 2019 doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2019.03.027 PubMed
42. Mottola M.F., Davenport M.H., Ruchat S.M., Davies G.A., Poitras V.J., Gray C.E. et al. 2019 Canadian guideline for physical activity throughout pregnancy. Br. J. Sports Med.. 2018 doi:10.1136/bjsports-2018-100056 PubMed
43. Muraro A., Halken S., Arshad S.H., Beyer K., Dubois A.E.J., Du-Toit G. et al. EAACI food allergy and anaphylaxis guidelines. Primary prevention of food allergy. Allergy. 2014 doi:10.1111/all.12398 PubMed
44. Antenatal Care for Uncomplicated Pregnancies. 2019 PubMed
45. Diabetes in Pregnancy: Management from Preconception to the Postnatal Period. 2020 PubMed
46. Weight Management before, during and after Pregnancy. 2010
47. Pavord S., Myers B., Robinson S., Allard S., Strong J., Oppenheimer C.. UK guidelines on the management of iron deficiency in pregnancy. Br. J. Haematol.. 2012 doi:10.1111/j.1365-2141.2011.09012.x PubMed
48. Piccinini V.H., Adamo K., Bell R., Pereira L., Nerenberg K.. Canadian Adult Obesity Clinical Practice Guidelines: Weight Management Over the Reproductive Years for Adult Women Living with Obesity. 2020
49. Ryan K., Bain B.J., Worthington D., James J., Plews D., Mason A. et al. Significant haemoglobinopathies: Guidelines for screening and diagnosis. Br. J. Haematol.. 2010 doi:10.1111/j.1365-2141.2009.08054.x PubMed
50. Sentilhes L., Sénat M.V., Boulogne A.I., Deneux-Tharaux C., Fuchs F., Legendre G. et al. Shoulder dystocia: Guidelines for clinical practice from the French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (CNGOF). Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol.. 2016 doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.05.047 PubMed
51. Siu A.L.. Screening for Iron Deficiency Anemia and Iron Supplementation in Pregnant Women to Improve Maternal Health and Birth Outcomes: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann. Intern. Med.. 2015 doi:10.7326/M15-1707 PubMed
52. Lauder J., Sciscione A., Biggio J., Osmundson S.. Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine Consult Series #50: The role of activity restriction in obstetric management: (Replaces Consult Number 33, August 2014). Am. J. Obstet Gynecol.. 2020 doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2020.04.031 PubMed
53. Meija L., Rezeberga D.. Proper Maternal Nutrition during Pregnancy Planning and Pregnancy: A Healthy Start in Life. 2017
54. Guideline: Daily Iron Supplementation in Adult Women and Adolescent Girls. 2016 PubMed
55. Guideline: Intermittent Iron and Folic Acid Supplementation in Menstruating Women. 2011 PubMed
56. Guideline: Sodium Intake for Adults and Children. 2012 PubMed
57. Guideline: Sugars Intake for Adults and Children. 2015 PubMed
58. Guideline: Vitamin A Supplementation in Pregnant Women. 2011
59. WHO Antenatal Care Recommendations for a Positive Pregnancy Experience: Nutritional Interventions Update: Multiple Micronutrient Supplements during Pregnancy. 2020 PubMed
60. WHO Antenatal Care Recommendations for a Positive Pregnancy Experience: Nutritional Interventions Update: Vitamin D Supplements during Pregnancy. 2020 PubMed
61. WHO Recommendations on Antenatal Care for A Positive Pregnancy Experience. 2016 PubMed
62. Grammatikopoulou M.G., Theodoridis X., Gkiouras K., Lampropoulou M., Petalidou A., Patelida M. et al. Methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines for nutrition and weight gain during pregnancy: A systematic review. Nutr. Rev.. 2020 doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuz065 PubMed
63. Simon A., Pratt M., Hutton B., Skidmore B., Fakhraei R., Rybak N. et al. Guidelines for the management of pregnant women with obesity: A systematic review. Obes. Rev.. 2020 doi:10.1111/obr.12972 PubMed
64. Harrison C.L., Teede H., Khan N., Lim S., Chauhan A., Drakeley S. et al. Weight management across preconception, pregnancy, and postpartum: A systematic review and quality appraisal of international clinical practice guidelines. Obes. Rev.. 2021 doi:10.1111/obr.13310 PubMed
65. Brouwers M.C., Kho M.E., Browman G.P., Burgers J.S., Cluzeau F., Feder G. et al. Development of the AGREE II, part 1: Performance, usefulness and areas for improvement. CMAJ. 2010 doi:10.1503/cmaj.091714 PubMed
66. Hawkes C., Ruel M.T., Salm L., Sinclair B., Branca F.. Double-duty actions: Seizing programme and policy opportunities to address malnutrition in all its forms. Lancet. 2020 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32506-1 PubMed