↓ Skip to main content

Bed rest in singleton pregnancies for preventing preterm birth

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
63 tweeters
facebook
9 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 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
Bed rest in singleton pregnancies for preventing preterm birth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003581.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudio G Sosa, Fernando Althabe, José M Belizán, Eduardo Bergel

Abstract

Bed rest in hospital or at home is widely recommended for the prevention of preterm birth. This advice is based on the observation that hard work and hard physical activity during pregnancy could be associated with preterm birth and with the idea that bed rest could reduce uterine activity. However, bed rest may have some adverse effects on other outcomes. To evaluate the effect of prescription of bed rest in hospital or at home for preventing preterm birth in pregnant women at high risk of preterm birth. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (18 December 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE (December 2014), EMBASE (December 2014), LILACS (December 2014), and bibliographies of relevant papers. Randomized, cluster-randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials with reported data that assess clinical outcomes in women at high risk of spontaneous preterm birth who were prescribed bed rest in hospital or at home for preventing preterm birth, and their babies. Two review authors independently assessed eligibility, trial quality and extracted data. Two studies met the inclusion criteria. One study was not considered for the meta-analysis, since data combined singleton and multiple pregnancies. No differences in any maternal and perinatal outcomes were reported by the authors. This study was at low risk of selection, performance, detection and attrition bias. Only data from one study were included in the meta-analysis (1266 women). This study was at unclear risk of bias for most domains due to lack of reporting. Four hundred and thirty-two women were prescribed bed rest at home and a total of 834 women received a placebo (412) or no intervention (422). Preterm birth before 37 weeks was similar in both groups (7.9% in the intervention group versus 8.5% in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 1.37). No other results were reported for any of the other primary or secondary outcomes. There is no evidence, either supporting or refuting the use of bed rest at home or in hospital, to prevent preterm birth. Although bed rest in hospital or at home is widely used as the first step of treatment, there is no evidence that this practice could be beneficial. Due to the potential adverse effects that bed rest could have on women and their families, and the increased costs for the healthcare system, clinicians should discuss the pros and cons of bed rest to prevent preterm birth. Potential benefits and harms should be discussed with women facing an increased risk of preterm birth. Appropriate research is mandatory. Future trials should evaluate both the effectiveness of bed rest, and the effectiveness of the prescription of bed rest, to prevent preterm birth.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 63 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 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 178 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 22%
Researcher 26 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 11%
Student > Bachelor 18 10%
Student > Postgraduate 15 8%
Other 38 21%
Unknown 25 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 14%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Unspecified 5 3%
Other 27 15%
Unknown 31 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 15 January 2019.
All research outputs
#338,444
of 15,010,583 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#814
of 11,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,800
of 226,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#25
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,010,583 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,075 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 226,149 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.