MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410157852 · doi:10.1002/ijgo.70193

Sedentary behavior during pregnancy and risk of pre‐eclampsia and/or gestational hypertension: A systematic review

2025· review· en· W4410157852 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lulu X Pei, Shelby Marozoff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGestational hypertensionPregnancyObstetricsEclampsiaBlood pressureHypertension in PregnancyObservational studyCohort studyGestational ageRisk factorPreeclampsiaPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in perinatal care, pre-eclampsia remains a major cause of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Gestational hypertension and blood pressure are important intermediate endpoints for pre-eclampsia. Sedentary behavior has emerged as an independent risk factor for chronic disease, regardless of physical activity levels. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence on sedentary behavior during pregnancy and in the year before conception and its effect on risk of pre-eclampsia, gestational hypertension, combined hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and blood pressure. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Web of Science, and EuropePMC preprints was performed up to May 25, 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Observational and experimental studies investigating the association between sedentary behavior and pre-eclampsia, gestational hypertension, combined hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, and blood pressure in pregnant individuals. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Effect estimates, a measure of uncertainty, and study and participant characteristics were extracted from study reports. A narrative synthesis is presented with forest plot visualizations. Quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort/case-control studies and the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 12 observational studies meeting eligibility criteria, two studies reported on the outcome of gestational hypertension; no significant association was found between amount of time spent sedentary and gestational hypertension risk. Four studies reported on pre-eclampsia risk and found no association between sedentary behavior and pre-eclampsia risk. Four studies assessed a combined outcome of total hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; of these, one study reported greater odds of hypertensive disorders among sedentary individuals compared with non-sedentary individuals, and one study found that cases spent more time on the computer relative to controls. Five studies investigated blood pressure in pregnancy; of these, one study reported a positive correlation between systolic blood pressure and sedentary behavior, and one study reported higher second-trimester diastolic blood pressure in groups with high versus low sedentary behavior. CONCLUSIONS: We found little evidence of an association between sedentary behavior and pre-eclampsia, gestational hypertension, or blood pressure. This is in contrast to the large body of evidence supporting the protective effect of physical activity on hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Heterogeneity in the methods used to estimate sedentary behavior limited the ability to quantify this association. Additional high-quality observational studies or randomized trials are warranted to reach more definitive conclusions.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.007
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecology & ObstetricsSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207