Table 2.

Summary information, available prior to the IPD meta-analysis, about 14 trials that were included in the aggregate data meta-analysis of Thangaratinam et al. [31] and had promised their IPD at the time of the IPD meta-analysis grant application

		Intervention group					Control group
Author	Year	n	Mean weight gain (kg)	SD of weight gain	Mean BMI at baseline	SD of BMI	n	Mean weight gain (kg)	SD of weight gain	Mean BMI at baseline	SD of BMI	Intervention effect (difference in weight gain)	95% CI
Wolff	2008	23	6.60	5.50	34.90	4.00	27	13.30	7.50	34.60	3.00	−6.70	(− 10.31, −3.09)
Landon	2009	476	2.80	4.50	30.10	5.00	455	5.00	3.30	30.20	5.10	−2.20	(−2.71, −1.69)
Rae	2000	67	11.56	10.80	37.90	0.70	58	9.68	11.04	38.00	0.70	1.88	(−1.96, 5.72)
Guelinck	2010	42	9.80	7.60	33.75	3.79	43	10.60	6.90	33.50	3.90	−0.80	(−3.89, 2.29)
Jeffries	2009	124	10.70	4.21	NA	NA	111	11.50	4.03	NA	NA	−0.80	(−1.85, 0.25)
Jackson	2010	163	15.15	5.50	NA	NA	164	15.24	6.67	NA	NA	−0.09	(−1.41, 1.23)
Hui	2006	24	14.20	5.30	23.40	3.90	21	14.20	6.30	25.70	6.30	0.00	(−3.43, 3.43)
Ong	2009	6	3.70	3.40	35.10	3.50	6	5.20	1.30	35.10	3.50	−1.50	(−4.41, 1.41)
Khaledan	2010	18	4.04	3.49	NA	NA	21	5.00	3.70	NA	NA	−0.96	(−3.22, 1.30)
Barakat	2009	72	11.50	3.70	24.30	0.50	70	12.40	3.40	23.40	0.50	−0.90	(−2.07, 0.27)
Haakstad	2009	52	13.00	4.00	NA	NA	53	13.80	3.80	NA	NA	−0.80	(−2.29, 0.69)
Hopkins	2010	47	8.20	3.49	25.50	4.30	37	8.00	3.70	25.40	2.90	0.20	(−1.35, 1.75)
Marquez-Sterling	2000	9	16.20	3.40	22.80	4.00	6	15.70	4.00	24.50	4.50	0.50	(−3.40, 4.40)
Yeo	2009	60	15.90	6.80	NA	NA	64	15.40	5.90	NA	NA	0.50	(−1.75, 2.75)