Resistance training in pregnancy: systematic review and meta-analysis of pregnancy, delivery, fetal and pelvic floor outcomes and call to action
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective Resistance training (RT) has wide-ranging health benefits that may extend to pregnancy. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the influence of RT as a sole intervention or as part of a multicomponent exercise programme on pregnancy, delivery, fetal and pelvic floor outcomes. Design A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. Risk of bias was performed using the Johanna Briggs Institute risk of bias tool. Data sources Six databases were searched from inception to 15 March 2024. Eligibility criteria Studies were eligible for inclusion if pregnant individuals performed a RT intervention of any intensity, compared with usual care or a non-RT intervention. Outcomes included pregnancy outcomes (rates of gestational hypertension, pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes and perinatal mood disorders), delivery outcomes (rates of caesarean section, perineal tearing, instrumented delivery and length of labour), fetal outcomes (birth mass, microsomia, macrosomia and gestational age) and rates of pelvic floor disorders. Results Overall, 50 studies (47 619 participants) from 14 countries were included in this review. There were 45 randomised controlled trials, 3 non-randomised interventions and 2 observational studies. Sixteen studies were considered low risk of bias, 27 studies were of moderate risk of bias and seven were classified as high risk of bias. Ninety per cent of studies were multicomponent programmes, and the dosage of RT interventions was generally low-to-moderate. Reporting of RT prescription, progression and use of appropriate loading guidance was poor. RT was associated with a reduction in the odds of gestational hypertension (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.66; I 2 =0%), gestational diabetes (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.79; I 2 =0%), perinatal mood disorders (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.73; I 2 =0%) and macrosomia (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.88; I 2 =23%) compared with control groups. Conclusions RT, alone or as part of a multicomponent intervention, has significant health benefits during pregnancy. As the majority of interventions are multicomponent, and the aerobic programmes are more appropriately dosed, understanding the impact of RT on the pregnant person is challenging, and studies using currently accepted RT guidelines for exercise dosage and progression are needed.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».