Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19821424›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2009

Routine pre-pregnancy health promotion for improving pregnancy outcomes.

Melissa Whitworth, Therese Dowswell

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Effectiveness of preconception interventions in primary care: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Melissa WhitworthSt Mary's Hospital, Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust, Hathersage Road, Manchester, UK, M13 0JH.
Therese Dowswell
Cochrane · GBSt Mary's Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA number of potentially modifiable risk factors are known to be associated with poor pregnancy outcomes. These include smoking, drinking excess alcohol, and poor nutrition. Routine health promotion (encompassing education, advice and general health assessment) in the pre-pregnancy period has been proposed for improving pregnancy outcomes by encouraging behavioural change, or allowing early identification of risk factors. While results from observational studies have been encouraging, this review examines evidence from randomised controlled trials of preconception health promotion.

objectivesTo assess the effectiveness of routine pre-pregnancy health promotion for improving pregnancy outcomes when compared with no pre-pregnancy care or usual care. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (February 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials examining health promotion interventions which aim to identify and modify risk factors before pregnancy. The review focuses on all women of childbearing age rather than those in high-risk groups. We have excluded trials where interventions are aimed specifically at women with established medical, obstetric or genetic risks or already receiving treatment as part of programmes for high-risk groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and carried out data extraction. MAIN

resultsFour trials (2300 women) are included. The interventions ranged from brief advice through to education on health and lifestyle over several sessions. For most outcomes, data were only available from individual studies. Only one study followed up through pregnancy and there was no strong evidence of a difference between groups for preterm birth, congenital anomalies or weight for gestational age; only one finding (mean birthweight) reached statistical significance (mean difference -97.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -168.05 to -25.95). This finding needs to be interpreted with caution as pregnancy outcome data were available for only half of the women randomised. There was some evidence that health promotion interventions were associated with positive maternal behavioural change including lower rates of binge drinking (risk ratio 1.24, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.44). Overall, there has been little research in this area and there is a lack of evidence on the effects of pre-pregnancy health promotion on pregnancy outcomes. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is little evidence on the effects of pre-pregnancy health promotion and much more research is needed in this area. There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend the widespread implementation of routine pre-pregnancy health promotion for women of childbearing age, either in the general population or between pregnancies.

Indexed as

Pregnancy OutcomeAdultFemaleHealth BehaviorHealth EducationHealth PromotionHumansMaternal BehaviorPreconception CarePregnancyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk FactorsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID19821424
PMCPMC4164828
OpenAlexW2137447904

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.