↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Zinc supplementation for improving pregnancy and infant outcome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
189 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
475 Mendeley
Title
Zinc supplementation for improving pregnancy and infant outcome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD000230.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erika Ota, Rintaro Mori, Philippa Middleton, Ruoyan Tobe‐Gai, Kassam Mahomed, Celine Miyazaki, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Abstract

It has been suggested that low serum zinc levels may be associated with suboptimal outcomes of pregnancy such as prolonged labour, atonic postpartum haemorrhage, pregnancy-induced hypertension, preterm labour and post-term pregnancies, although many of these associations have not yet been established. To assess the effects of zinc supplementation in pregnancy on maternal, fetal, neonatal and infant outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2014) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised trials of zinc supplementation in pregnancy. We excluded quasi-randomised controlled trials. Three review authors applied the study selection criteria, assessed trial quality and extracted data. When necessary, we contacted study authors for additional information. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. We included 21 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reported in 54 papers involving over 17,000 women and their babies. One trial did not contribute data. Trials were generally at low risk of bias. Zinc supplementation resulted in a small reduction in preterm birth (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 0.97 in 16 RCTs; 16 trials of 7637 women). This was not accompanied by a similar reduction in numbers of babies with low birthweight (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.12; 14 trials of 5643 women). No clear differences were seen between the zinc and no zinc groups for any of the other primary maternal or neonatal outcomes, except for induction of labour in a single trial. No differing patterns were evident in the subgroups of women with low versus normal zinc and nutrition levels or in women who complied with their treatment versus those who did not. The GRADE quality of the evidence was moderate for preterm birth, small-for-gestational age, and low birthweight, and low for stillbirth or neonatal death and birthweight. The evidence for a 14% relative reduction in preterm birth for zinc compared with placebo was primarily represented by trials involving women of low income and this has some relevance in areas of high perinatal mortality. There was no convincing evidence that zinc supplementation during pregnancy results in other useful and important benefits. Since the preterm association could well reflect poor nutrition, studies to address ways of improving the overall nutritional status of populations in impoverished areas, rather than focusing on micronutrient and or zinc supplementation in isolation, should be an urgent priority.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 475 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 465 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 64 13%
Student > Master 63 13%
Student > Bachelor 58 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 47 10%
Other 31 7%
Other 89 19%
Unknown 123 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 153 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 63 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 6%
Social Sciences 23 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 4%
Other 56 12%
Unknown 131 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 April 2016.
All research outputs
#7,387,249
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,415
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,614
of 360,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#184
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 360,757 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.