Prenatal Exercise and Cardiorespiratory Health and Fitness: A Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine the influence of prenatal exercise on maternal cardiorespiratory health and fitness during pregnancy. METHODS: Online databases were searched up to February 25, 2019. Studies of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible, which contained information on the relevant population (pregnant women), intervention (subjective or objective measures of frequency, intensity, duration, volume, or type of exercise), comparator (no exercise intervention), and outcomes (maternal cardiorespiratory fitness, including V˙O2max, submaximal V˙O2, V˙O2 at anaerobic threshold, and cardiorespiratory health, including resting heart rate, and resting systolic and diastolic blood pressures during pregnancy). RESULTS: From 2699 unique citations, 26 RCTs (N = 2292 women) were included. Of these, one study reported measured V˙O2max, seven reported predicted V˙O2max, three reported submaximal V˙O2, and two studies reported VO2AT. "Low"- to "high"-certainty evidence revealed that exercise was associated with improved predicted/measured V˙O2max (5 RCTs, n = 430; mean difference [MD], 2.77 mL·kg·min; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 5.21 mL·kg·min; I = 69%), reduced resting heart rate (9 RCTs, n = 637; MD, -1.71 bpm; 95% CI, -3.24 to -0.19 bpm; I = 13%), resting systolic blood pressure (16 RCTs, n = 1672; MD, -2.11 mm Hg; 95% CI, -3.71 to -0.51 mm Hg; I = 69%), and diastolic blood pressure (15 RCTs, n = 1624; MD, -1.77 mm Hg; 95% CI, -2.90 to -0.64 mm Hg; I = 60%). CONCLUSION: Prenatal exercise interventions improve maternal predicted/measured V˙O2max and reduce resting heart rate and blood pressure. This review highlights the need for additional high-quality studies of cardiorespiratory fitness (namely, V˙O2max and V˙O2 peak) in pregnancy.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019131249.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.050 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".