Evidence mapPaperPMID 39895455Full record

SynthesisBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2025

Antenatal Physical Activity Interventions and Pregnancy Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With a Focus on Trial Quality.

Amanda J Poprzeczny, Andrea R Deussen, Megan Mitchell, Laura Slade, Jennie Louise, Jodie M Dodd

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Amanda J PoprzecznyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Robinson Research Institute, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6162-0305
Andrea R DeussenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Robinson Research Institute, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6210-1876
Megan MitchellDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Robinson Research Institute, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Laura SladeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Robinson Research Institute, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Jennie LouiseWomen's and Children's Hospital Research Centre, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Jodie M DoddDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Robinson Research Institute, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council 1196133
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGuidelines recommending regular physical activity in pregnancy for improving pregnancy outcomes are informed by published meta-analyses. Inclusion of randomised trials of poor methodological quality may bias effect estimates.

objectivesTo assess the validity of these recommendations by focusing on trial quality. SEARCH STRATEGY: Systematic search of PubMed, PubMed Central, Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL from inception to 14 December 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials evaluating an antenatal physical activity intervention alone, compared with no such intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Independent of this, studies were grouped based on degree of deviation from the intention to treat principle. Sequential meta-analysis was performed in which greater degrees of potential bias were allowed. Between intervention group comparisons used, relative risks or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous outcomes and continuous outcomes, respectively. MAIN

resultsOverall, the quality of trial reporting was low. Only 5 trials (12.5%) were performed and analysed in keeping with the intention to treat principle. When considering only those trials performed rigorously, there was no evidence that antenatal physical activity improves pregnancy outcomes or limits gestational weight gain (WMD -0.60 kg; 95% CI -2.17, 0.98 WMD -0.60 kg; 95% CI -2.17, 0.98).

conclusionsWhen considering only trials at no/negligible risk of bias, antenatal physical activity interventions were not associated with improved pregnancy outcomes. Most trials were not methodologically rigorous. Incorporation of such meta-analyses into pregnancy care guidelines may result in inaccurate recommendations.

Indexed as

ExercisePregnancy OutcomePrenatal CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicFemaleHumansPregnancyantenatal physical activitygestational weight gainlarge for gestational agesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39895455
PMCPMC11969922

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.