PMC3074407

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Women with prior SGA births had elevated glucose metabolism despite being leaner than controls, with SGA <5th percentile having 3.30 times the risk of elevated fasting glucose (>110 mg/dL) compared wi

Effect: decline; OR 3.30 for elevated glucose (>110 mg/dL) in SGA <5th percentile; CI: 95% CI 1.12, 7.85

Late preterm (34-<37 weeks) women met Joint Statement MetS criteria (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05-2.86), while early preterm (<34 weeks) women had 2-3 times higher risk of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL but

Effect: mixed; OR 1.82 (late preterm MetS by Joint Statement); CI: 95% CI 1.05, 2.86

Late preterm (34-<37 weeks) women met Joint Statement MetS criteria (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05-2.86), while early preterm (<34 weeks) women had 2-3 times higher risk of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL but

Effect: mixed; OR 1.82 (late preterm MetS by Joint Statement); CI: 95% CI 1.05, 2.86

Late preterm (34-<37 weeks) women met Joint Statement MetS criteria (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05-2.86), while early preterm (<34 weeks) women had 2-3 times higher risk of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL but

Effect: mixed; OR 1.82 (late preterm MetS by Joint Statement); CI: 95% CI 1.05, 2.86

Late preterm (34-<37 weeks) women met Joint Statement MetS criteria (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05-2.86), while early preterm (<34 weeks) women had 2-3 times higher risk of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL but

Effect: mixed; OR 1.82 (late preterm MetS by Joint Statement); CI: 95% CI 1.05, 2.86

Late preterm (34-<37 weeks) women met Joint Statement MetS criteria (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05-2.86), while early preterm (<34 weeks) women had 2-3 times higher risk of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL but

Effect: mixed; OR 1.82 (late preterm MetS by Joint Statement); CI: 95% CI 1.05, 2.86

Late preterm (34-<37 weeks) women met Joint Statement MetS criteria (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05-2.86), while early preterm (<34 weeks) women had 2-3 times higher risk of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL but

Effect: mixed; OR 1.82 (late preterm MetS by Joint Statement); CI: 95% CI 1.05, 2.86

Late preterm (34-<37 weeks) women met Joint Statement MetS criteria (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05-2.86), while early preterm (<34 weeks) women had 2-3 times higher risk of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL but

Effect: mixed; OR 1.82 (late preterm MetS by Joint Statement); CI: 95% CI 1.05, 2.86

Late preterm (34-<37 weeks) women met Joint Statement MetS criteria (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05-2.86), while early preterm (<34 weeks) women had 2-3 times higher risk of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL but

Effect: mixed; OR 1.82 (late preterm MetS by Joint Statement); CI: 95% CI 1.05, 2.86

Late preterm (34-<37 weeks) women met Joint Statement MetS criteria (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05-2.86), while early preterm (<34 weeks) women had 2-3 times higher risk of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL but

Effect: mixed; OR 1.82 (late preterm MetS by Joint Statement); CI: 95% CI 1.05, 2.86

Late preterm (34-<37 weeks) women met Joint Statement MetS criteria (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05-2.86), while early preterm (<34 weeks) women had 2-3 times higher risk of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL but

Effect: mixed; OR 1.82 (late preterm MetS by Joint Statement); CI: 95% CI 1.05, 2.86

Late preterm (34-<37 weeks) women met Joint Statement MetS criteria (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05-2.86), while early preterm (<34 weeks) women had 2-3 times higher risk of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL but

Effect: mixed; OR 1.82 (late preterm MetS by Joint Statement); CI: 95% CI 1.05, 2.86

Late preterm (34-<37 weeks) women met Joint Statement MetS criteria (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05-2.86), while early preterm (<34 weeks) women had 2-3 times higher risk of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL but

Effect: mixed; OR 1.82 (late preterm MetS by Joint Statement); CI: 95% CI 1.05, 2.86

Late preterm (34-<37 weeks) women met Joint Statement MetS criteria (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05-2.86), while early preterm (<34 weeks) women had 2-3 times higher risk of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL but

Effect: mixed; OR 1.82 (late preterm MetS by Joint Statement); CI: 95% CI 1.05, 2.86

Late preterm (34-<37 weeks) women met Joint Statement MetS criteria (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05-2.86), while early preterm (<34 weeks) women had 2-3 times higher risk of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL but

Effect: mixed; OR 1.82 (late preterm MetS by Joint Statement); CI: 95% CI 1.05, 2.86

Late preterm (34-<37 weeks) women met Joint Statement MetS criteria (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05-2.86), while early preterm (<34 weeks) women had 2-3 times higher risk of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL but

Effect: mixed; OR 1.82 (late preterm MetS by Joint Statement); CI: 95% CI 1.05, 2.86

Late preterm (34-<37 weeks) women met Joint Statement MetS criteria (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05-2.86), while early preterm (<34 weeks) women had 2-3 times higher risk of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL but

Effect: mixed; OR 1.82 (late preterm MetS by Joint Statement); CI: 95% CI 1.05, 2.86

Late preterm (34-<37 weeks) women met Joint Statement MetS criteria (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05-2.86), while early preterm (<34 weeks) women had 2-3 times higher risk of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL but

Effect: mixed; OR 1.82 (late preterm MetS by Joint Statement); CI: 95% CI 1.05, 2.86

Late preterm (34-<37 weeks) women met Joint Statement MetS criteria (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05-2.86), while early preterm (<34 weeks) women had 2-3 times higher risk of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL but

Effect: mixed; OR 1.82 (late preterm MetS by Joint Statement); CI: 95% CI 1.05, 2.86

Late preterm (34-<37 weeks) women met Joint Statement MetS criteria (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05-2.86), while early preterm (<34 weeks) women had 2-3 times higher risk of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL but

Effect: mixed; OR 1.82 (late preterm MetS by Joint Statement); CI: 95% CI 1.05, 2.86

Late preterm (34-<37 weeks) women met Joint Statement MetS criteria (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05-2.86), while early preterm (<34 weeks) women had 2-3 times higher risk of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL but

Effect: mixed; OR 1.82 (late preterm MetS by Joint Statement); CI: 95% CI 1.05, 2.86

Late preterm (34-<37 weeks) women met Joint Statement MetS criteria (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05-2.86), while early preterm (<34 weeks) women had 2-3 times higher risk of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL but

Effect: mixed; OR 1.82 (late preterm MetS by Joint Statement); CI: 95% CI 1.05, 2.86

Late preterm (34-<37 weeks) women met Joint Statement MetS criteria (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05-2.86), while early preterm (<34 weeks) women had 2-3 times higher risk of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL but

Effect: mixed; OR 1.82 (late preterm MetS by Joint Statement); CI: 95% CI 1.05, 2.86

Late preterm (34-<37 weeks) women met Joint Statement MetS criteria (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.05-2.86), while early preterm (<34 weeks) women had 2-3 times higher risk of hypertriglyceridemia and low HDL but

Effect: mixed; OR 1.82 (late preterm MetS by Joint Statement); CI: 95% CI 1.05, 2.86