↓ Skip to main content

Pyridoxine (vitamin B6) supplementation during pregnancy or labour for maternal and neonatal outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 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
Pyridoxine (vitamin B6) supplementation during pregnancy or labour for maternal and neonatal outcomes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000179.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rehana A Salam, Nadeem F Zuberi, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Abstract

Vitamin B6 plays vital roles in numerous metabolic processes in the human body, such as nervous system development and functioning. It has been associated with some benefits in non-randomised studies, such as higher Apgar scores, higher birthweights, and reduced incidence of pre-eclampsia and preterm birth. Recent studies also suggest a protection against certain congenital malformations. To evaluate the clinical effects of vitamin B6 supplementation during pregnancy and/or labour. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (31 March 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We included randomised controlled trials comparing vitamin B6 administration in pregnancy and/or labour with: placebos, no supplementations, or supplements not containing vitamin B6. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. For this update, we assessed methodological quality of the included trials using risk of bias and the GRADE approach. Four trials (1646 women) were included. The method of randomisation was unclear in all four trials and allocation concealment was reported in only one trial. Two trials used blinding of participants and outcomes. Vitamin B6 as oral capsules or lozenges resulted in decreased risk of dental decay in pregnant women (capsules: risk ratio (RR) 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 0.98; one trial, n = 371, low quality of evidence; lozenges: RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.83; one trial, n = 342, low quality of evidence). A small trial showed reduced mean birthweights with vitamin B6 supplementation (mean difference -0.23 kg; 95% CI -0.42 to -0.04; n = 33; one trial). We did not find any statistically significant differences in the risk of eclampsia (capsules: n = 1242; three trials; lozenges: n = 944; one trial), pre-eclampsia (capsules n = 1197; two trials, low quality of evidence; lozenges: n = 944; one trial, low-quality evidence) or low Apgar scores at one minute (oral pyridoxine: n = 45; one trial), between supplemented and non-supplemented groups. No differences were found in Apgar scores at five minutes, or breastmilk production between controls and women receiving oral (n = 24; one trial) or intramuscular (n = 24; one trial) loading doses of pyridoxine at labour. Overall, the risk of bias was judged as unclear. The quality of the evidence using GRADE was low for both pre-eclampsia and dental decay. The other primary outcomes, preterm birth before 37 weeks and low birthweight, were not reported in the included trials. There were few trials, reporting few clinical outcomes and mostly with unclear trial methodology and inadequate follow-up. There is not enough evidence to detect clinical benefits of vitamin B6 supplementation in pregnancy and/or labour other than one trial suggesting protection against dental decay. Future trials assessing this and other outcomes such as orofacial clefts, cardiovascular malformations, neurological development, preterm birth, pre-eclampsia and adverse events are required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 151 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 25%
Researcher 22 14%
Unspecified 20 13%
Student > Bachelor 20 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Other 38 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 42%
Unspecified 28 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 14%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Other 25 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 06 April 2018.
All research outputs
#684,073
of 12,768,104 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,322
of 10,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,572
of 230,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#72
of 262 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,768,104 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 10,426 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. 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 230,711 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 262 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.