Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28807059›Full record

Trial reportPublic health nutrition2017

Lower education predicts poor response to dietary intervention in pregnancy, regardless of neighbourhood affluence: secondary analysis from the ROLO randomised control trial.

Eileen C O'Brien, Goiuri Alberdi, Aisling A Geraghty, Fionnuala M McAuliffe

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Public health nutrition, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Weight Gain in Pregnancy and Weight Retention after Birth.Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences · 2019
    Article
  9. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eileen C O'BrienUCD Perinatal Research Centre,Obstetrics & Gynaecology,UCD School of Medicine,University College Dublin,National Maternity Hospital,Dublin,Republic of Ireland.
Goiuri AlberdiUCD Perinatal Research Centre,Obstetrics & Gynaecology,UCD School of Medicine,University College Dublin,National Maternity Hospital,Dublin,Republic of Ireland.
Aisling A GeraghtyUCD Perinatal Research Centre,Obstetrics & Gynaecology,UCD School of Medicine,University College Dublin,National Maternity Hospital,Dublin,Republic of Ireland.
Fionnuala M McAuliffeUCD Perinatal Research Centre,Obstetrics & Gynaecology,UCD School of Medicine,University College Dublin,National Maternity Hospital,Dublin,Republic of Ireland.
National Maternity Hospital · IEUniversity College Dublin · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine if response to a low glycaemic index (GI) dietary intervention, measured by changes in dietary intake and gestational weight gain, differed across women of varying socio-economic status (SES).

designSecondary data analysis of the ROLO randomised control trial. The intervention consisted of a two-hour low-GI dietary education session in early pregnancy. Change in GI was measured using 3 d food diaries pre- and post-intervention. Gestational weight gain was categorised as per the 2009 Institute of Medicine guidelines. SES was measured using education and neighbourhood deprivation.

settingThe National Maternity Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. SUBJECTS: Women (n 625) recruited to the ROLO randomised control trial.

resultsThe intervention significantly reduced GI and excess gestational weight gain (EGWG) among women with third level education residing in both disadvantaged (GI, mean (sd), intervention v. control: -3·30 (5·15) v. -0·32 (4·22), P=0·024; EGWG, n (%), intervention v. control: 7 (33·6) v. 22 (67·9); P=0·022) and advantaged areas (GI: -1·13 (3·88) v. 0·06 (3·75), P=0·020; EGWG: 41 (34·1) v. 58 (52·6); P=0·006). Neither GI nor gestational weight gain differed between the intervention and control group among women with less than third level education, regardless of neighbourhood deprivation.

conclusionsA single dietary education session was not effective in reducing GI or gestational weight gain among less educated women. Multifaceted, appropriate and practical approaches are required in pregnancy interventions to improve pregnancy outcomes for less educated women.

Indexed as

Diet, Carbohydrate-RestrictedEducational StatusGlycemic IndexMaternal Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaPatient ComplianceAdultFemaleHealth Status DisparitiesHospitals, MaternityHumansIrelandNutritional SciencesOverweightPatient Education as TopicPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsDietary interventionGestational weight gainHealth inequalitiesPregnancySocio-economic status

Identifiers

PMID28807059
PMCPMC10261293
OpenAlexW2748327100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.