↓ Skip to main content

Zinc supplementation for improving pregnancy and infant outcome

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 (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
115 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
411 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
Zinc supplementation for improving pregnancy and infant outcome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD000230.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 411 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Unknown 400 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 68 17%
Student > Bachelor 56 14%
Student > Master 55 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 48 12%
Other 24 6%
Other 86 21%
Unknown 74 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 157 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 57 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 6%
Social Sciences 23 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 4%
Other 50 12%
Unknown 83 20%

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
#1,571,885
of 7,588,328 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,867
of 8,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,690
of 215,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#171
of 254 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 78th 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 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 215,527 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.