↓ Skip to main content

Exercise in Pregnancy and Children’s Cardiometabolic Risk Factors: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine - Open, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 Mendeley
Title
Exercise in Pregnancy and Children’s Cardiometabolic Risk Factors: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Published in
Sports Medicine - Open, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40798-018-0148-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laetitia Guillemette, Jacqueline L. Hay, D. Scott Kehler, Naomi C. Hamm, Christopher Oldfield, Jonathan M. McGavock, Todd A. Duhamel

Abstract

Maternal metabolic health during the prenatal period is an established determinant of cardiometabolic disease risk. Many studies have focused on poor offspring outcomes after exposure to poor maternal health, while few have systematically appraised the evidence surrounding the role of maternal exercise in decreasing this risk. The aim of this study is to characterize and quantify the specific impact of prenatal exercise on children's cardiometabolic health markers, at birth and in childhood. A systematic review of Scopus, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus up to December 2017 was conducted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies of prenatal aerobic exercise and/or resistance training reporting eligible offspring outcomes were included. Four reviewers independently identified eligible citations and extracted study-level data. The primary outcome was birth weight; secondary outcomes, specified a priori, included large-for-gestational age status, fat and lean mass, dyslipidemia, dysglycemia, and blood pressure. We included 73 of the 9804 citations initially identified. Data from RCTs was pooled using random effects models. Statistical heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 test. Analyses were done between June and December 2017 and the search was updated in December 2017. Fifteen observational studies (n = 290,951 children) and 39 RCTs (n = 6875 children) were included. Observational studies were highly heterogeneous and had discrepant conclusions, but globally showed no clinically relevant effect of exercise on offspring outcomes. Meta-analyzed RCTs indicated that prenatal exercise did not significantly impact birth weight (mean difference [MD] - 22.1 g, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 51.5 to 7.3 g, n = 6766) or large-for-gestational age status (risk ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.44, n = 937) compared to no exercise. Sub-group analyses showed that prenatal exercise reduced birth weight according to timing (starting after 20 weeks of gestation, MD - 84.3 g, 95% CI - 142.2, - 26.4 g, n = 1124), type of exercise (aerobic only, MD - 58.7 g, 95% CI - 109.7, - 7.8 g; n = 2058), pre-pregnancy activity status (previously inactive, MD - 34.8 g, 95% CI - 69.0, - 0.5 g; n = 2829), and exercise intensity (light to moderate intensity only, MD - 45.5 g, 95% CI - 82.4, - 8.6 g; n = 2651). Fat mass percentage at birth was not altered by prenatal exercise (0.19%, 95% CI - 0.27, 0.65%; n = 130); however, only two studies reported this outcome. Other outcomes were too scarcely reported to be meta-analyzed. Prenatal exercise does not causally impact birth weight, fat mass, or large-for-gestational-age status in a clinically relevant way. Longer follow up of offspring exposed to prenatal exercise is needed along with measures of relevant metabolic variables (e.g., fat and lean mass). Protocol registration number: CRD42015029163 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 120 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Researcher 7 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 42 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 20 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 45 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 December 2020.
All research outputs
#3,293,488
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine - Open
#236
of 488 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,166
of 331,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine - Open
#10
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 488 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,728 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.