↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for leg cramps in pregnancy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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
Interventions for leg cramps in pregnancy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010655.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kunyan Zhou, Helen M West, Jing Zhang, Liangzhi Xu, Wenjuan Li

Abstract

Leg cramps are a common problem in pregnancy. Various interventions have been used to treat them, including drug, electrolyte and vitamin therapies, and non-drug therapies. To assess the effectiveness and safety of different interventions for treating leg cramps in pregnancy. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Register (31 March 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any intervention (drug, electrolyte, vitamin or non-drug therapies) for treatment of leg cramps in pregnancy compared with placebo, no treatment or other treatment. Quinine was excluded for its known adverse effects (teratogenicity). Cluster-RCTS were considered for inclusion. Quasi-RCTs and cross-over studies were excluded. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We included six studies (390 women). Four trials compared oral magnesium with placebo/no treatment, two compared oral calcium with no treatment, one compared oral vitamin B versus no treatment, and one compared oral calcium with oral vitamin C. Two of the trials were well-conducted and reported, the other four had design limitations. The process of random allocation was sub-optimal in three studies, and blinding was not attempted in two. Outcomes were reported in different ways, precluding the use of meta-analysis and limiting the strength of our conclusions.The 'no treatment' group in one four-arm trial has been used as the comparison group for the composite outcome (intensity and frequency of leg cramps) in magnesium, calcium, and vitamin B versus no treatment. This gives it disproportionate weight in the overall analysis, thus interpretation of these results should be cautious. Oral magnesium versus placebo/no treatmentMagnesium (taken orally for two to four weeks) did not consistently reduce the frequency of leg cramps compared with placebo or no treatment. Outcomes that showed differences were: frequency of leg cramps after treatment: never, and twice a week (risk ratio (RR) 5.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35 to 23.68, one trial, 69 women, evidence graded low; RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.80, one trial, 69 women), and frequency of leg cramps: 50% reduction in number of leg cramps after treatment (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.86, one trial, 86 women, evidence graded low). The outcomes that showed no difference were: frequency of leg cramps during two weeks of treatment (mean difference (MD) 1.80, 95% CI -1.32 to 4.92, one trial, 38 women, evidence graded low); frequency of leg cramps after treatment: daily, every other day, and once a week (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.21, one trial, 69 women; RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.57, one trial, 69 women; RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.87, one trial, 69 women).Evidence about whether magnesium supplements reduced the intensity of pain was inconclusive, with two studies showing that it may slightly reduce pain, while one showed no difference. There were no differences in the experience of side effects (including nausea, flatulence, diarrhoea and intestinal air) between pregnant women receiving magnesium compared with placebo/no treatment. Oral calcium versus no treatmentA greater proportion of women receiving calcium supplements experienced no leg cramps after treatment than those receiving no treatment (frequency of leg cramps after treatment: never RR 8.59, 95% CI 1.19 to 62.07, one study, 43 women, evidence graded very low). There was no difference between groups for a composite outcome (intensity and frequency) for partial improvement (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.15, one trial, 42 women); however, the same trial showed a greater proportion of women experiencing no leg cramps after treatment with calcium compared with no treatment (RR 5.50, 95% CI 1.38 to 21.86).Other secondary outcomes, including side effects, were not reported. Oral vitamin B versus no treatment Frequency of leg cramps was not reported in the one included trial. According to a composite outcome (frequency and intensity), more women receiving vitamin B fully recovered compared with those receiving no treatment (RR 7.50, 95% CI 1.95 to 28.81). Those women receiving no treatment were more likely to experience a partial improvement in the intensity and frequency of leg cramps than those taking vitamin B (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.73, one trial, 42 women), or to see no change in their condition. However, these results are based on one small study with design limitations.Other secondary outcomes, including side effects, were not reported. Oral calcium versus oral vitamin CThere was no difference in the frequency of leg cramps after treatment with calcium versus vitamin C (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.38, one study, 60 women, evidence graded very low). Other outcomes, includingside effects, were not reported. It is unclear from the evidence reviewed whether any of the interventions (oral magnesium, oral calcium, oral vitamin B or oral vitamin C) provide an effective treatment for leg cramps. This is primarily due to outcomes being measured and reported in different, incomparable ways, and design limitations compromising the quality of the evidence (the level of evidence was graded low or very low). This was mainly due to poor study design and trials being too small to address the question satisfactorily.Adverse outcomes were not reported, other than side effects for magnesium versus placebo/no treatment. It is therefore not possible to assess the safety of these interventions.The inconsistency in the measurement and reporting of outcomes, meant that data could not be pooled, meta-analyses could not be carried out, and comparisons between studies are difficult.The review only identified trials of oral interventions (magnesium, calcium, vitamin B or vitamin C) to treat leg cramps in pregnancy. None of the trials considered non-drug therapies, for example, muscle stretching, massage, relaxation, heat therapy, and dorsiflexion of the foot. This limits the completeness and applicability of the evidence.Standardised measures for assessing the frequency, intensity and duration of leg cramps to be used in large well-conducted randomised controlled trials are needed to answer this question. Trials of non-drug therapies are also needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 114 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 27%
Unspecified 20 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Other 30 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 45%
Unspecified 30 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 6%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 16 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 26 March 2019.
All research outputs
#677,682
of 13,538,683 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,147
of 10,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,517
of 234,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#66
of 263 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,538,683 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 10,639 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 234,390 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 263 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 74% of its contemporaries.