↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 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 (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
478 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 nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007575.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Matthews, David M Haas, Dónal P O'Mathúna, Therese Dowswell

Abstract

Nausea, retching and vomiting are very commonly experienced by women in early pregnancy. There are considerable physical, social and psychological effects on women who experience these symptoms. This is an update of a review of interventions for nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy last published in 2014. To assess the effectiveness and safety of all interventions for nausea, vomiting and retching in early pregnancy, up to 20 weeks' gestation. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field's Trials Register (19 January 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. All randomised controlled trials of any intervention for nausea, vomiting and retching in early pregnancy. We excluded trials of interventions for hyperemesis gravidarum, which are covered by another Cochrane review. We also excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials using a cross-over design. Four review authors, in pairs, reviewed the eligibility of trials and independently evaluated the risk of bias and extracted the data for included trials. Forty-one trials involving 5449 women, met the inclusion criteria. These trials covered many interventions, including acupressure, acustimulation, acupuncture, ginger, chamomile, lemon oil, mint oil, vitamin B6 and several antiemetic drugs. There were no included studies of dietary and other lifestyle interventions. Evidence regarding the effectiveness of P6 acupressure, auricular (ear) acupressure and acustimulation of the P6 point was limited. Acupuncture (P6 or traditional) showed no significant benefit to women in pregnancy. The use of ginger products may be helpful to women, but the evidence of effectiveness was limited and not consistent, though three recent studies support ginger over placebo. There was only limited evidence from trials to support the use of pharmacological agents including vitamin B6, Doxylamine-pyridoxoine and other anti-emetic drugs to relieve mild or moderate nausea and vomiting. There was little information on maternal and fetal adverse outcomes and on psychological, social or economic outcomes.We were unable to pool findings from studies for most outcomes due to heterogeneity in study participants, interventions, comparison groups, and outcomes measured or reported. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed. Risk of bias was low related to performance bias, detection bias and attrition bias for most studies. Selection bias risk was unclear for many studies and almost half of the studies did not fully or clearly report all pre-specified outcomes. Given the high prevalence of nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy, women and health professionals need clear guidance about effective and safe interventions, based on systematically reviewed evidence. There is a lack of high-quality evidence to support any particular intervention. This is not the same as saying that the interventions studied are ineffective, but that there is insufficient strong evidence for any one intervention. The difficulties in interpreting and pooling the results of the studies included in this review highlight the need for specific, consistent and clearly justified outcomes and approaches to measurement in research studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 478 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 472 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 103 22%
Student > Master 84 18%
Researcher 47 10%
Other 31 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 6%
Other 74 15%
Unknown 108 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 180 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 96 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 4%
Psychology 17 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 3%
Other 35 7%
Unknown 119 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 25 August 2020.
All research outputs
#439,182
of 17,361,274 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#992
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,073
of 246,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#26
of 260 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,361,274 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 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 246,552 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 260 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.