Low birth weight is associated with adverse health outcomes. If birth weight records are not available, studies may use recalled birth weight. It is unclear whether this is reliable. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing recalled with recorded birth weights. We followed the Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) statement and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) to May 2015. We included studies that reported recalled birth weight and recorded birth weight. We excluded studies investigating a clinical population. Two reviewers independently reviewed citations, extracted data, assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled in a random effects meta-analysis for correlation and mean difference. In total, 40 studies were eligible for qualitative synthesis (n = 78,997 births from 78,196 parents). Agreement between recalled and recorded birth weight was high: pooled estimate of correlation in 23 samples from 19 studies (n = 7406) was 0.90 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-0.93]. The difference between recalled and recorded birth weight in 29 samples from 26 studies (n = 29,293) was small [range −86-129 g; random effects estimate 1.4 g (95% CI −4.0-6.9 g)]. Studies were heterogeneous, with no evidence for an effect of time since birth, person reporting, recall bias, or birth order. In post-hoc subgroup analysis, recall was higher than recorded birth weight by 80 g (95% CI 57-103 g) in low and middle income countries. In conclusion, there is high agreement between recalled and recorded birth weight. If birth weight is recalled, it is suitable for use in epidemiological studies, at least in high income countries.

Background: Prevalence of the diabetes among pregnant women is increasing, attributable to advance maternal age, multi foetal gestation, increased body mass index, strong family history, sedentary life style, change in the diet, continued immigration. Gestational diabetes has few symptoms, commonly diagnosed by screening during pregnancy. Methods: The present study was conducted at Department of Medicine and Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur. Rajasthan, India. Results: Out of 476 patients attending the antenatal outdoor at the Umaid Hospital, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India. The prevalence of gestational diabetes in present study was 7.98%, Incidence of GDM found to increase with increasing age with maximum prevalence (10.71%) in more than 30 years age group, with increasing parity, low socioeconomic strata and in urban population. With maximum prevalence amongst higher parities (12.5%) in >G5 and higher). The incidence was higher with history of PIH (36.36%), family H/O DM (33.3%), GDM (12.12%), perinatal losses (15.15%), anomalous baby (9.09%), high BMI (67%). GDM complicate the normal course of pregnancy with increased incidence of PIH (36.4), Polyhydramnios (27.2%), infections like vaginal candidiasis (24.2%) and UTI (39.3%). The infant of diabetic mother had 12 (32.29%), 9 (26.47%), 11 (32.35%), 8 (23.53%) 5 (14.70%) and 3 (8.82%) of hypoglycemia, respiratory distress, macrosomia, congenital anomalies, birth injuries, polycythaemia, and hypocalcaemia respectively in diabetic mothers with suboptimal glycaemic control during pregnancy. Conclusions: GDM continues to be an important obstetrical condition with significant feto-maternal morbidity. Complications in infant of diabetic mother are more common with those mothers who had poor glycaemic control.