MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4247532201 · doi:10.1002/cl2.1150

Effects of nutritional interventions during pregnancy on birth, child health and development outcomes: A systematic review of evidence from low‐ and middle‐income countries

2021· review· en· W4247532201 sur OpenAlexaff
Zohra S Lassi, Zahra Ali Padhani, Amna Rabbani, Fahad Rind, Rehana A Salam, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Notice bibliographique

RevueCampbell Systematic Reviews · 2021
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Établissements canadiensSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicinePsychological interventionPregnancyCINAHLMalnutritionObesitySystematic reviewRandomized controlled trialPediatricsLow birth weightMEDLINEObstetricsEnvironmental healthPsychiatryInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background Optimal nutrition plays a crucial role in pregnancy. Poor maternal nutrition and maternal obesity has risk factors for serious fetal complications and neonatal outcomes, including intrauterine growth restriction, congenital abnormalities, stillbirth, low birth weight (LBW), preterm birth, fetal macrosomia, increased risk of neonatal infections, neonatal hypothermia, and neonatal death. The prevalence of maternal malnutrition is higher in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (10–19%) when compared with high-income countries, with variation by region and by country. Several behavioral interventions, including dietary control and exercise, have been found to reduce the risk of these adverse outcomes. However, none has reviewed dietary interventions to prevent maternal obesity in pregnant women. Objectives The review aims to assess the effectiveness of balanced energy protein (BEP) supplementation, food distribution programs (FDPs), and dietary interventions to prevent maternal obesity during pregnancy on birth, child health, and developmental outcomes. Search Methods We searched Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and 12 other databases, and trials registers for ongoing studies up until April 2019. We also searched for gray literature from different sources and for citations on Google Scholar and Web of Sciences. We also checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews and contacted the authors of studies for any ongoing and unpublished studies. The search was followed by title/abstract screening, full-text screening and data extraction. Selection Criteria We included randomized control trials, and quasi experimental trials to evaluate the impact of nutritional interventions (BEP, FDP, and dietary interventions to prevent maternal obesity) compared to control or standard of care, among healthy pregnant women of any age living in LMICs. Data Collection and Analysis Two review authors independently assessed and screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed quality of the studies included in the review. We conducted a meta-analysis of all reported primary and secondary outcomes. Subgroup analysis and GRADE assessment was performed for all reported primary outcomes. Main Results The review included 15 studies, of these, eight were on BEP supplementation, five on FDP, and two on interventions for obesity prevention. BEP supplementation may show a reduction in the rate of stillbirths by 61% (risk ratio [RR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.19–0.80; three studies, n = 1913; low quality on GRADE), perinatal mortality by 50% (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.30–0.84; one study, n = 1446; low quality on GRADE), LBW infants by 40% (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.41–0.86; three studies, n = 1830; low quality of evidence on GRADE); small for gestational age (SGA) by 29% (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54–0.94; five studies, n = 1844) and increased birth weight by 107.28 g (mean difference [MD], 107.28 g; 95% CI, 68.51–146.04, eight studies, n = 2190). An increase of 107.28 g of birthweight is clinically significant in the countries where the intervention was provided. BEP supplementation had no effect on miscarriage, neonatal mortality, infant mortality, preterm birth, birth length, and head circumference. FDP may show improvement in mean birth weight by 46 g (MD, 46.00 g; 95% CI, 45.10–46.90, three studies, n = 5272), in birth length by 0.20 cm (MD, 0.20 cm; 95% CI, 0.20–0.20, three studies, n = 5272), and reduction in stunting by 18% (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71–0.94; two studies; n = 4166), and wasting by 13% (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78–0.97; two studies, n = 3883). There was no effect of FDP on miscarriage, maternal mortality, perinatal mortality, neonatal mortality, infant mortality, preterm birth, LBW, SGA, head circumference, and underweight babies. Studies on interventions for obesity prevention among pregnant women failed to report on the primary outcomes. The studies showed a 195.57 g reduction in mean birth weight (MD, −195.57 g, 95% CI, −349.46 to −41.68, two studies, n = 180), and had no effect on birth length, and macrosomia. Authors' Conclusions Our review highlights improvement in maternal, birth, and child outcomes through BEP supplementation and FDP during pregnancy. But, due to the small number of included studies and low quality of evidence, we are uncertain of the effect of BEP supplementation, FDP and dietary interventions for prevention of obesity on maternal, and child outcomes. Thus, further good quality research is recommended to assess the effect of these interventions on maternal, child and developmental outcomes.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens large)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,989
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,040

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,033
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0110,008
Bibliométrie0,0080,010
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,139
Tête enseignante GPT0,396
Écart entre enseignants0,257 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations49
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCampbell Systematic ReviewsMême sujetGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementTravaux en français237 207