↓ Skip to main content

Dietary advice interventions in pregnancy for preventing gestational diabetes mellitus

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
22 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
301 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Dietary advice interventions in pregnancy for preventing gestational diabetes mellitus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006674.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna Tieu, Emily Shepherd, Philippa Middleton, Caroline A Crowther

Abstract

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a form of diabetes occurring during pregnancy which can result in short- and long-term adverse outcomes for women and babies. With an increasing prevalence worldwide, there is a need to assess strategies, including dietary advice interventions, that might prevent GDM. To assess the effects of dietary advice interventions for preventing GDM and associated adverse health outcomes for women and their babies. We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (3 January 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the effects of dietary advice interventions compared with no intervention (standard care), or to different dietary advice interventions. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Data were checked for accuracy. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. We included 11 trials involving 2786 women and their babies, with an overall unclear to moderate risk of bias. Six trials compared dietary advice interventions with standard care; four compared low glycaemic index (GI) with moderate- to high-GI dietary advice; one compared specific (high-fibre focused) with standard dietary advice. Dietary advice interventions versus standard care (six trials) Considering primary outcomes, a trend towards a reduction in GDM was observed for women receiving dietary advice compared with standard care (average risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 1.04; five trials, 1279 women; Tau² = 0.20; I² = 56%; P = 0.07; GRADE: very low-quality evidence); subgroup analysis suggested a greater treatment effect for overweight and obese women receiving dietary advice. While no clear difference was observed for pre-eclampsia (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.46; two trials, 282 women; GRADE: low-quality evidence) a reduction in pregnancy-induced hypertension was observed for women receiving dietary advice (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.88; two trials, 282 women; GRADE: low-quality evidence). One trial reported on perinatal mortality, and no deaths were observed (GRADE: very low-quality evidence). None of the trials reported on large-for-gestational age or neonatal mortality and morbidity.For secondary outcomes, no clear differences were seen for caesarean section (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.24; four trials, 1194 women; Tau² = 0.02; I² = 36%; GRADE: low-quality evidence) or perineal trauma (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.23 to 3.08; one trial, 759 women; GRADE: very low-quality evidence). Women who received dietary advice gained less weight during pregnancy (mean difference (MD) -4.70 kg, 95% CI -8.07 to -1.34; five trials, 1336 women; Tau² = 13.64; I² = 96%; GRADE: low-quality evidence); the result should be interpreted with some caution due to considerable heterogeneity. No clear differences were seen for the majority of secondary outcomes reported, including childhood/adulthood adiposity (skin-fold thickness at six months) (MD -0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.71 to 0.51; one trial, 132 children; GRADE: low-quality evidence). Women receiving dietary advice had a lower well-being score between 14 and 28 weeks, more weight loss at three months, and were less likely to have glucose intolerance (one trial).The trials did not report on other secondary outcomes, particularly those related to long-term health and health service use and costs. We were not able to assess the following outcomes using GRADE: postnatal depression; maternal type 2 diabetes; neonatal hypoglycaemia; childhood/adulthood type 2 diabetes; and neurosensory disability. Low-GI dietary advice versus moderate- to high-GI dietary advice (four trials) Considering primary outcomes, no clear differences were shown in the risks of GDM (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.31; four trials, 912 women; GRADE: low-quality evidence) or large-for-gestational age (average RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.86; three trials, 777 babies; Tau² = 0.61; P = 0.07; I² = 62%; GRADE: very low-quality evidence) between the low-GI and moderate- to high-GI dietary advice groups. The trials did not report on: hypertensive disorders of pregnancy; perinatal mortality; neonatal mortality and morbidity.No clear differences were shown for caesarean birth (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.04; two trials, 201 women; GRADE: very low-quality evidence) and gestational weight gain (MD -1.23 kg, 95% CI -4.08 to 1.61; four trials, 787 women; Tau² = 7.31; I² = 90%; GRADE: very low-quality evidence), or for other reported secondary outcomes.The trials did not report the majority of secondary outcomes including those related to long-term health and health service use and costs. We were not able to assess the following outcomes using GRADE: perineal trauma; postnatal depression; maternal type 2 diabetes; neonatal hypoglycaemia; childhood/adulthood adiposity; type 2 diabetes; and neurosensory disability. High-fibre dietary advice versus standard dietary advice (one trial) The one trial in this comparison reported on two secondary outcomes. No clear difference between the high-fibre and standard dietary advice groups observed for mean blood glucose (following an oral glucose tolerance test at 35 weeks), and birthweight. Very low-quality evidence from five trials suggests a possible reduction in GDM risk for women receiving dietary advice versus standard care, and low-quality evidence from four trials suggests no clear difference for women receiving low- versus moderate- to high-GI dietary advice. A possible reduction in pregnancy-induced hypertension for women receiving dietary advice was observed and no clear differences were seen for other reported primary outcomes. There were few outcome data for secondary outcomes.For outcomes assessed using GRADE, evidence was considered to be low to very low quality, with downgrading based on study limitations (risk of bias), imprecision, and inconsistency.More high-quality evidence is needed to determine the effects of dietary advice interventions in pregnancy. Future trials should be designed to monitor adherence, women's views and preferences, and powered to evaluate effects on short- and long-term outcomes; there is a need for such trials to collect and report on core outcomes for GDM research. We have identified five ongoing studies and four are awaiting classification. We will consider these in the next review update.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 301 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Unknown 300 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 61 20%
Unspecified 59 20%
Student > Bachelor 39 13%
Researcher 33 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 11%
Other 76 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 102 34%
Unspecified 79 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 50 17%
Psychology 20 7%
Social Sciences 14 5%
Other 36 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 11 January 2019.
All research outputs
#695,427
of 12,995,916 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,293
of 10,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,060
of 368,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#49
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,995,916 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,439 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
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 368,486 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.