Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36554014›Full record

ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Systematic Review and Critical Evaluation of Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines on Nutrition in Pregnancy.

Marika De Vito, Sara Alameddine, Giulia Capannolo, Ilenia Mappa, Paola Gualtieri, Laura Di Renzo, Antonino De Lorenzo, Francesco D' Antonio, Giuseppe Rizzo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

9 authors.

Marika De VitoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Fondazione Policlinico Tor Vergata, Università di Roma Tor Vergata, 00185 Roma, Italy.
Sara AlameddineDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Università di Chieti, 66100 Chieti, Italy.
Giulia CapannoloDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Università di Chieti, 66100 Chieti, Italy.
Ilenia MappaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Fondazione Policlinico Tor Vergata, Università di Roma Tor Vergata, 00185 Roma, Italy.
Paola GualtieriDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, Università di Roma Tor Vergata Section of Clinical Nutrition and Nutrigenomic, 00185 Roma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1533-4276
Laura Di RenzoDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, Università di Roma Tor Vergata Section of Clinical Nutrition and Nutrigenomic, 00185 Roma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8875-6723
Antonino De LorenzoDepartment of Biomedicine and Prevention, Università di Roma Tor Vergata Section of Clinical Nutrition and Nutrigenomic, 00185 Roma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6524-4493
Francesco D' AntonioDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Università di Chieti, 66100 Chieti, Italy.
Giuseppe RizzoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology Fondazione Policlinico Tor Vergata, Università di Roma Tor Vergata, 00185 Roma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5525-4353

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To report the quality and clinical heterogeneity of the published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on nutrition in pregnancy. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science databases were searched. The following aspects related to nutrition in pregnancy were addressed: specific requirements during pregnancy, description of a balanced diet, weight gain, prevention of food-borne, nutrition in peculiar sub-groups of women, and maternal or perinatal outcomes. The assessment of the risk of bias and quality assessment of the included CPGs were performed using “The Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE II)” tool divided in six quality domains: scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, clarity of presentation, applicability, editorial independence. Mean ± standard deviation (SD) was used to summarize the scores across all the guidelines per domain. The quality of each guideline was computed using the scoring system proposed by Amer et al. A cut-off of >60% was sued to define a CGP as recommended. Results: Eighteen CPGs were included. There was a substantial heterogeneity in the recommended dose for vitamins, folic acid, and micronutrient intake during pregnancy among the different published CPGs. 27.8% (5/18) of the CPGs recommended a daily intake of folic acid of 200 mcg, 38.8% (7/18) 400 mcg, 16.7% (3/18) 600 mcg while the remaining CPGs suggested dose between 400 and 600−800 mc per day. Adequate maternal hydration was advocated in the large majority of included CPGs, but a specific amount of water intake was not reported in 83.3% (15/18) cases. There was also significant heterogeneity in various other aspects of nutrition recommendation among the different CPGs, including gestational weight gain (55.5%), prevention of food-borne diseases in pregnancy (72.2%), nutrition in particular groups of pregnant women (83.3%), maternal and perinatal outcomes (72.2%). The AGREE II standardized domain scores for the first overall assessment (OA1) had a mean of 65% but only half scored more than 60%. Conclusion: The published CPGs on nutrition in pregnancy show an overall good methodology, but also a substantial heterogeneity as regard as different major aspects on nutrition in pregnancy.

Indexed as

clinical practice guidelinesnutrition in pregnancyweight gain in pregnancy

Identifiers

PMID36554014
PMCPMC9778102

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.