Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38879168›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2024

A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis Comparing In-Person, Remote, and Blended Interventions in Physical Activity, Diet, Education, and Behavioral Modification on Gestational Weight Gain among Overweight or Obese Pregnant Individuals.

Hongli Yu, Mingmao Li, Guoping Qian, Shuqi Yue, Zbigniew Ossowski, Anna Szumilewicz

Abstract readComparative StudySystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Patient and public involvement in randomized trials of lifestyle intervention among pregnant women with obesity: An umbrella review.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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.

Hongli YuCollege of Physical Education, Sichuan University of Science & Engineering, Zigong, Sichuan, China. Electronic address: hongli.yu@suse.edu.cn.
Mingmao LiDepartment of Fitness, Gdansk University of Physical Education and Sport, Gdansk, Poland.
Guoping QianDepartment of Fitness, Gdansk University of Physical Education and Sport, Gdansk, Poland. Electronic address: guoping.qian@awf.gda.pl.
Shuqi YueDepartment of Fitness, Gdansk University of Physical Education and Sport, Gdansk, Poland.
Zbigniew OssowskiDepartment of Fitness, Gdansk University of Physical Education and Sport, Gdansk, Poland.
Anna SzumilewiczDepartment of Fitness, Gdansk University of Physical Education and Sport, Gdansk, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite the well-documented adverse outcomes associated with obesity during pregnancy, this condition remains a promising modifiable risk factor.

objectivesThe aim of this study was to ascertain the most effective treatment modalities for gestational weight gain (GWG) in pregnant women classified as overweight or obese.

methodsA systematic search was conducted across 4 electronic databases: Embase, EBSCOhost, PubMed, and Web of Science. To assess the quality of evidence, the Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approach, grounded in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework, was employed. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the comparative effectiveness of treatment modalities based on GWG outcomes.

resultsThe analysis incorporated 60 randomized controlled trials, encompassing 16,615 participants. Modes of intervention administration were classified as remote (R: eHealth [e] and mHealth [m]), in-person (I), and a combination of both (I+R). The interventions comprised 5 categories: education (E), physical activity (PA), dietary (D), behavior modification (B), and combinations thereof. The quality of the evidence, as evaluated by CINeMA, ranged from very low to high. Compared to the control group, the I-D intervention (mean difference [MD]: -1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.23, -0.32), I-PADB (MD: -0.60, 95% CI: -1.19, -0.00), and I-B (MD: -0.34, 95% CI: -0.57, -0.10) interventions showed significant efficacy in reducing GWG.

conclusionsPreliminary findings suggest that the I-D intervention is the most efficacious in managing GWG among pregnant women who are overweight or obese, followed by I-PADB and I-B+R-B(m) treatments. These conclusions are drawn from evidence of limited quality and directness, including insufficient data on PA components used in the interventions. Owing to the absence of robust, direct evidence delineating significant differences among various GWG management strategies, it is tentatively proposed that the I-D intervention is likely the most effective approach. This study was registered with PROSPERO as CRD42023473627.

Indexed as

Behavior TherapyDietExerciseGestational Weight GainObesityOverweightAdultBayes TheoremFemaleHumansPatient Education as TopicPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTelemedicinedietgestational weight gainlifestylephysical activitypregnancy

Identifiers

PMID38879168
PMCPMC11267029

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.