↓ Skip to main content

A randomized controlled trial of exercise during pregnancy on maternal and neonatal outcomes: results from the PAMELA study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
467 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A randomized controlled trial of exercise during pregnancy on maternal and neonatal outcomes: results from the PAMELA study
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12966-017-0632-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shana Ginar da Silva, Pedro Curi Hallal, Marlos Rodrigues Domingues, Andréa Dâmaso Bertoldi, Mariângela Freitas da Silveira, Diego Bassani, Inácio Crochemore Mohnsam da Silva, Bruna Gonçalves Cordeiro da Silva, Carolina de Vargas Nunes Coll, Kelly Evenson

Abstract

Women are encouraged to be physically active during pregnancy. Despite available evidence supporting antenatal physical activity to bring health benefits for both the mother and child, the most effective way to prevent some maternal and fetal outcomes is still unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of an exercise intervention to prevent negative maternal and newborn health outcomes. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) nested into the 2015 Pelotas (Brazil) Birth Cohort Study was carried-out with 639 healthy pregnant women, 213 in the intervention group (IG) and 426 in the control (CG) group. An exercise-based intervention was conducted three times/week for 16 weeks from 16-20 to 32-36 weeks' gestation. The main outcomes were preterm birth and pre-eclampsia. Gestational age was calculated based on several parameters, including routine ultrassounds and/or last menstrual period and categorized as < 37 weeks and ≥ 37 weeks for evaluation of preterm birth. Pre-eclampsia was self-reported. Secondary outcomes were gestational weight gain, gestational diabetes, birth weight, infant length, and head circumference. Analyses were performed by intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (70% of the 48 planned exercise sessions). Odds ratio were derived using unconditional logistic regression. The IG and CG did not differ at baseline regarding their mean age (27.2 years ± 5.3 vs. 27.1 years ± 5.7) and mean pre-pregnancy body mass index (25.1 ± 3.9 vs. 25.2 ± 4.1 kg/m2). The mean adherence to the exercise intervention was 27 ± 17.2 sessions (out of a potential 48) with 40.4% attending > = 70% of the recommended exercise sessions. A total of 594 participants (IG:198; CG: 396) were included in the ITT and 479 (IG: 83; CG: 396) were included in the per protocol analyses. There were no significant differences in the incidence of preterm birth and pre-eclampsia between groups in the ITT and per protocol analysis. There were also no differences between the two groups in mean gestational weight gain, gestational diabetes, birth weight, infant length, and head circumference. While the RCT did not support the benefits of exercise performed during pregnancy on preeclampsia and preterm birth, the exercise program also did not present adverse impacts on newborn health. Our findings may contribute to promote intervention strategies that motivate health providers to encourage pregnant women to be more physically active. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02148965 , registered on 22 May 2014.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 467 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 467 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 78 17%
Student > Master 60 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 8%
Unspecified 24 5%
Researcher 20 4%
Other 82 18%
Unknown 164 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 91 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 86 18%
Sports and Recreations 37 8%
Unspecified 25 5%
Social Sciences 11 2%
Other 44 9%
Unknown 173 37%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 July 2020.
All research outputs
#4,422,960
of 18,096,829 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#1,183
of 1,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,401
of 418,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#115
of 142 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,096,829 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,694 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.8. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 418,712 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 142 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.