Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36694170›Full record

ArticleBMC pregnancy and childbirth2023

Adherence to recommended physical activity restrictions due to threatened preterm delivery - a descriptive multi-center study.

Jane M Bendix, Mette G Backhausen, Hanne K Hegaard, Ane Lilleoere Rom, Stig Molsted, Ellen C L Lokkegaard

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Jane M BendixDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Copenhagen University Hospital - North Zealand, Hillerod, Denmark. jane.bendix@regionh.dk.
Mette G BackhausenDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Zealand University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark.
Hanne K HegaardDepartment of Obstetrics, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ane Lilleoere RomDepartment of Obstetrics, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Stig MolstedDepartment of Clinical Research, Copenhagen University Hospital - North Zealand, Hillerod, Denmark.
Ellen C L LokkegaardDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Copenhagen University Hospital - North Zealand, Hillerod, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThreatened preterm delivery is a serious obstetrical complication and has for decades been prescribed physical activity restrictions (AR). Adherence to the recommended level of physical AR is however unknown. This study aimed to assess the objectively measured different physical positions and activities of pregnant women recommended AR due to threatened preterm delivery complications, compared to a reference group of uncomplicated pregnant women without restrictions, and to explore if admission status influenced adherence to AR.

methodsA Danish descriptive, clinical multi-center study included singleton pregnancies between 22-33 gestational weeks admitted to an antenatal ward or during midwife consultations either prescribed AR due to threatened preterm delivery or uncomplicated controls without restrictions. For seven days participants wore two tri-axial accelerometric SENS® monitors. Accelerometric data included time spent in five different positions, activities, and step counts. At inclusion demographic and obstetric information was collected.

resultsSeventy-two pregnant women participated; 31% were prescribed strict AR, 15% moderate, 3% light, 8% unspecified, and 43% had no AR. Strict AR participants rested in the supine/lateral position for 17.7 median hours/day (range:9.6-24.0); sat upright 4.9 h/day (0.11-11.7); took 1,520steps/day (20-5,482), and 64% were inpatients. Moderate AR participants rested in the supine/lateral position for 15.1 h/day (11.5-21.6); sat upright 5.6 h/day (2.0-9.3); took 3,310steps/day (467-6,968), and 64% were outpatients. Participants with no AR rested 10.5 h/day (6.3-15.4) in supine/lateral position; sat upright 7.6 h/day (0.1-11.4) and took 9,235steps/day (3,225-20,818). Compared to no restrictions, participants with strict or moderate AR spent significant more time in physical resting positions and took significant fewer mean steps. Among strict AR admission status did not alter time spent in the physical positions, nor the step count.

conclusionsOverall, participants adhered highly to the recommended AR. However, discriminating between strict and moderate AR recommendations did not alter how physical resting positions and activities were carried out. The admission status did not influence how participants adhered to strict AR.

Indexed as

Premature BirthExerciseFemaleHospitalizationHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyAccelerometric dataActivity restrictionsAdherenceAdmission statusPhysical positions/movementsThreatened preterm delivery

Identifiers

PMID36694170
PMCPMC9872354

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.