ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics & gynecology MFM2024
Activity restriction and risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes.
Article in American journal of obstetrics & gynecology MFM, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundActivity restriction is a common recommendation given to patients during pregnancy for various indications, despite lack of definitive data showing improvements in pregnancy outcomes.
objectiveTo determine if activity restriction (AR) in pregnancy is associated with decreased odds of adverse pregnancy outcomes (APOs). STUDY
designSecondary analysis of the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be (nuMoM2b) prospective cohort. Nulliparous singletons were followed at 8 sites from October 2010-September 2013. Demographic and clinical data were collected at 4 timepoints, and participants were surveyed about AR recommendations at 22w0d-29w6d and delivery. We excluded participants missing data on AR and age. Participants were grouped according to history of AR, and APOs included: gestational hypertension (gHTN), preeclampsia/eclampsia, preterm birth (PTB), and small for gestational age (SGA) neonate. Associations between AR and APOs were examined using uni- and multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for a priori identified APO risk factors.
resultsOf 10,038 nuMoM2b participants, 9,312 met inclusion criteria and 1,386 (14.9%) were recommended AR; participants identifying as Black (aOR 0.81 [95% CI 0.68-0.98]) or Hispanic (aOR 0.73 [95% CI 0.61-0.87]) were less likely to be placed on AR when compared to those identifying as White. Overall, 3,197 (34.3%) experienced at least one APO (717 [51.7%] of participants with AR compared to 2,480 [31.3%] participants without AR). After adjustment for baseline differences, the AR group had increased odds of gHTN (aOR 1.61 [95% CI 1.35-1.92]), preeclampsia/eclampsia (aOR 2.52 [95% CI 2.06-3.09]) and iatrogenic and spontaneous PTB (aOR 2.98 [95% CI 2.41-3.69]), but not delivery of an SGA neonate.
conclusionAR in pregnancy was independently associated with increased odds of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and PTB, but future prospective work is needed to determine potential causality. Further, participants identifying as Black or Hispanic were significantly less likely to be recommended AR compared to those identifying as White. While AR is not an evidence-based practice, these findings suggest bias may impact which patients receive advice to limit activity in pregnancy. El resumen está disponible en Español al final del artículo.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.