MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896003600 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2018-099836

Impact of prenatal exercise on neonatal and childhood outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2018· review· en· W2896003600 on OpenAlexafffund
Margie H. Davenport, Victoria L. Meah, Stéphanie-May Ruchat, Gregory Davies, Rachel J. Skow, Nick Barrowman, Kristi B. Adamo, Veronica J. Poitras, Casey Gray, Alejandra Jaramillo Garcia, Frances Sobierajski, Laurel Riske, Marina James, Amariah J Kathol, Megan Nuspl, Andrée-Anne Marchand, Taniya S. Nagpal, Linda Slater, Ashley Weeks, Rubén Barakat, Michelle F. Mottola

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research InstituteWestern UniversityChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioQueen's UniversityUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversity of OttawaWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicinePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPediatricsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify the relationship between maternal prenatal exercise and birth complications, and neonatal and childhood morphometric, metabolic and developmental outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review with random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression. DATA SOURCES: Online databases were searched up to 6 January 2017. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies of all designs were eligible (except case studies and reviews) if published in English, Spanish or French, and contained information on the relevant population (pregnant women without contraindication to exercise), intervention (subjective/objective measures of frequency, intensity, duration, volume or type of exercise, alone ('exercise-only') or in combination with other intervention components (eg, dietary; 'exercise+cointervention')), comparator (no exercise or different frequency, intensity, duration, volume, type or trimester of exercise) and outcomes (preterm birth, gestational age at delivery, birth weight, low birth weight (<2500 g), high birth weight (>4000 g), small for gestational age, large for gestational age, intrauterine growth restriction, neonatal hypoglycaemia, metabolic acidosis (cord blood pH, base excess), hyperbilirubinaemia, Apgar scores, neonatal intensive care unit admittance, shoulder dystocia, brachial plexus injury, neonatal body composition (per cent body fat, body weight, body mass index (BMI), ponderal index), childhood obesity (per cent body fat, body weight, BMI) and developmental milestones (including cognitive, psychosocial, motor skills)). RESULTS: A total of 135 studies (n=166 094) were included. There was 'high' quality evidence from exercise-only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showing a 39% reduction in the odds of having a baby >4000 g (macrosomia: 15 RCTs, n=3670; OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.92) in women who exercised compared with women who did not exercise, without affecting the odds of growth-restricted, preterm or low birth weight babies. Prenatal exercise was not associated with the other neonatal or infant outcomes that were examined. CONCLUSIONS: Prenatal exercise is safe and beneficial for the fetus. Maternal exercise was associated with reduced odds of macrosomia (abnormally large babies) and was not associated with neonatal complications or adverse childhood outcomes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.038
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations282
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207