↓ Skip to main content

Calcium supplementation (other than for preventing or treating hypertension) for improving pregnancy and infant outcomes

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
304 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
Calcium supplementation (other than for preventing or treating hypertension) for improving pregnancy and infant outcomes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD007079.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Buppasiri, Pranom, Lumbiganon, Pisake, Thinkhamrop, Jadsada, Ngamjarus, Chetta, Laopaiboon, Malinee, Medley, Nancy

Abstract

Maternal nutrition during pregnancy is known to have an effect on fetal growth and development. It is recommended that women increase their calcium intake during pregnancy and lactation, although the recommended dosage varies among professionals. Currently, there is no consensus on the role of routine calcium supplementation for pregnant women other than for preventing or treating hypertension. To determine the effect of calcium supplementation on maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes (other than for preventing or treating hypertension) as well as any possible side effects. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30th September 2014). We considered all published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women who received calcium supplementation versus placebo or no treatment. Cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies were not eligible for inclusion. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria, but only 23 studies contributed data to the review. These 23 trials recruited 18,587 women, with 17,842 women included in final analyses. There were no statistically significant differences between women who received calcium supplementation and those who did not in terms of reducing preterm births less than 37 weeks' gestation (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 1.05; 13 studies, 16,139 women; random-effects model) or less than 34 weeks' gestation (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.36; four trials, 5669). Most studies were of low risk of bias. We conducted sensitivity analysis for the outcome of preterm birth less than 37 weeks by removing two trials with unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment; the results then favoured treatment with calcium supplementation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.99; 11 trials, 15,379 women). There was no significant difference in infant low birthweight between the two treatment groups (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; six trials, 14,162 infants; random-effects model). However, when compared to the control group, women in the calcium supplementation group gave birth to slightly heavier birthweight infants (mean difference 56.40, 95% CI 13.55 to 99.25; 21 trials, 9202 women; random-effects model).Three outcomes were chosen for assessment with the GRADE software: preterm birth less than 37 weeks; preterm birth less than 34 weeks; and low birthweight less than 2500 g. Evidence for these outcomes was assessed as of moderate quality. This review indicates that there are no clear additional benefits to calcium supplementation in prevention of preterm birth or low infant birthweight. While there was a statistically significant difference of 56 g identified in mean infant birthweight, there was significant heterogeneity identified, and the clinical significance of this difference is uncertain.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 304 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Sri Lanka 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 290 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 66 22%
Researcher 50 16%
Unspecified 42 14%
Student > Bachelor 36 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 12%
Other 74 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 135 44%
Unspecified 52 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 7%
Social Sciences 13 4%
Other 45 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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
#1,497,212
of 7,588,328 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,637
of 8,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,108
of 203,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#153
of 235 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,588,328 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.6. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 203,429 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 235 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.