↓ Skip to main content

Vitamin C supplementation in 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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
71 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 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
Vitamin C supplementation in pregnancy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004072.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alice Rumbold, Erika Ota, Chie Nagata, Sadequa Shahrook, Caroline A Crowther

Abstract

Vitamin C supplementation may help reduce the risk of pregnancy complications such as pre-eclampsia, intrauterine growth restriction and maternal anaemia. There is a need to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vitamin C supplementation in pregnancy. To evaluate the effects of vitamin C supplementation, alone or in combination with other separate supplements on pregnancy outcomes, adverse events, side effects and use of health resources. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating vitamin C supplementation in pregnant women. Interventions using a multivitamin supplement containing vitamin C or where the primary supplement was iron were excluded. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Twenty-nine trials involving 24,300 women are included in this review. Overall, 11 trials were judged to be of low risk of bias, eight were high risk of bias and for 10 trials it was unclear. No clear differences were seen between women supplemented with vitamin C alone or in combination with other supplements compared with placebo or no control for the risk of stillbirth (risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.89 to 1.49; 20,038 participants; 11 studies; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence), neonatal death (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.08; 19,575 participants; 11 studies; I² = 0%), perinatal death (average RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.49; 17,105 participants; seven studies; I² = 35%), birthweight (mean difference (MD) 26.88 g, 95% CI -18.81 to 72.58; 17,326 participants; 13 studies; I² = 69%), intrauterine growth restriction (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.06; 20,361 participants; 12 studies; I² = 15%; high quality evidence), preterm birth (average RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.10; 22,250 participants; 16 studies; I² = 49%; high quality evidence), preterm PROM (prelabour rupture of membranes) (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.36; 16,825 participants; 10 studies; I² = 70%; low quality evidence), term PROM (average RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.56; 2674 participants; three studies; I² = 87%), and clinical pre-eclampsia (average RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05; 21,956 participants; 16 studies; I² = 41%; high quality evidence).Women supplemented with vitamin C alone or in combination with other supplements compared with placebo or no control were at decreased risk of having a placental abruption (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.92; 15,755 participants; eight studies; I² = 0%; high quality evidence) and had a small increase in gestational age at birth (MD 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.61; 14,062 participants; nine studies; I² = 65%), however they were also more likely to self-report abdominal pain (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.37; 1877 participants; one study). In the subgroup analyses based on the type of supplement, vitamin C supplementation alone was associated with a reduced risk of preterm PROM (average RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.91; 1282 participants; five studies; I² = 0%) and term PROM (average RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.94; 170 participants; one study). Conversely, the risk of term PROM was increased when supplementation included vitamin C and vitamin E (average RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.23; 3060 participants; two studies; I² = 0%). There were no differences in the effects of vitamin C on other outcomes in the subgroup analyses examining the type of supplement. There were no differing patterns in other subgroups of women based on underlying risk of pregnancy complications, timing of commencement of supplementation or dietary intake of vitamin C prior to trial entry. The GRADE quality of the evidence was high for intrauterine growth restriction, preterm birth, and placental abruption, moderate for stillbirth and clinical pre-eclampsia, low for preterm PROM. The data do not support routine vitamin C supplementation alone or in combination with other supplements for the prevention of fetal or neonatal death, poor fetal growth, preterm birth or pre-eclampsia. Further research is required to elucidate the possible role of vitamin C in the prevention of placental abruption and prelabour rupture of membranes. There was no convincing evidence that vitamin C supplementation alone or in combination with other supplements results in other important benefits or harms.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 71 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 %
Unknown 304 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 2%
Unspecified 4 1%
Researcher 4 1%
Student > Master 2 <1%
Student > Postgraduate 1 <1%
Other 4 1%
Unknown 283 93%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 2%
Unspecified 5 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 1%
Sports and Recreations 2 <1%
Psychology 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 283 93%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 69. 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 08 February 2019.
All research outputs
#236,205
of 13,205,002 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#608
of 10,522 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,874
of 248,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#23
of 266 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,205,002 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,522 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 248,370 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 266 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 91% of its contemporaries.