↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for heartburn 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 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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 heartburn in pregnancy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011379.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vorapong Phupong, Tharangrut Hanprasertpong

Abstract

Heartburn is one of the most common gastrointestinal symptoms in pregnant women. It can occur in all trimesters of pregnancy. The symptoms of heartburn in pregnancy may be frequent, severe and distressing, but serious complications are rare. Many interventions have been used for the treatment of heartburn in pregnancy. These interventions include advice on diet, lifestyle modification and medications. However, there has been no evidence-based recommendation for the treatment of heartburn in pregnancy. To assess the effects of interventions for relieving heartburn in pregnancy. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov (2 March 2015), Asian & Oceanic Congress of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (AOCOG) conference proceedings (20-23 October 2013, Centara Grand & Bangkok Convention Centre, Bangkok, Thailand), and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTS of interventions for heartburn in pregnancy compared with another intervention, or placebo, or no intervention. Cluster-RCTs would have been eligible for inclusion but none were identified. We excluded studies available as abstracts only and those using a cross-over design.Interventions could include advice on diet, lifestyle modification and medications (such as antacids, sucralfate, histamine 2-receptor antagonists, promotility drugs and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs)). Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We included nine RCTs involving 725 women. However, five trials did not contribute data. Four trials involving 358 women contributed data. Trials were generally at mixed risk of bias.We only identified data for three comparisons: pharmaceutical treatment versus placebo or no treatment; acupuncture versus no treatment and pharmacological intervention versus advice on dietary and lifestyle changes. Pharmaceutical treatment compared with placebo or no treatmentTwo trials evaluated any pharmaceutical treatment compared with placebo or no treatment. One trial examined a treatment rarely used nowadays (intramuscular prostigmine 0.5 mg versus placebo). One trial evaluated the effect of magnesium and aluminium hydroxide plus simethicone liquid and tablet compared with placebo. For the primary outcome of this review (relief of heartburn), women who received pharmaceutical treatment reported complete heartburn relief more often than women receiving no treatment or placebo (risk ratio (RR) 1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 2.50 in two RCTs of 256 women, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). Data on partial relief of heartburn were heterogenous and showed no clear difference (average RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.76 in two RCTs of 256 women, very low-quality evidence). In terms of secondary outcomes, there was no clear difference in the rate of side effects between the pharmaceutical treatment group and the placebo/no treatment group (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.89 in two RCTs of 256 women, very low-quality evidence). Pharmacological intervention versus advice on dietary and lifestyle choicesOne study compared 1 g of sucralfate with advice on dietary and lifestyle choices in treating heartburn. More women in the sucralfate group experienced complete relief of heartburn compared to women who received advice on diet and lifestyle choices (RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.42 to 4.07; participants = 65; studies = one). The only secondary outcome of interest addressed by this trial was side effects. The evidence was not clear on intervention side effects rate between the two groups (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.07 to 41.21; participants = 66; studies = one). There was only one instance of side effects in the pharmacological group. Acupuncture compared with no treatmentOne trial evaluated acupuncture compared with no treatment but did not report data relating to this review's primary outcome (relief of heartburn). In terms of secondary outcomes, there was no difference in the rate of side effects between women who had acupuncture and women who had no treatment (RR 2.43, 95% CI 0.11 to 55.89 in one RCT of 36 women). With regard to quality of life, women who had acupuncture reported improved ability to sleep (RR 2.80, 95% CI 1.14 to 6.86) and eat (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.11 to 5.18 in one RCT of 36 women).The following secondary outcomes were not reported upon in any of the trials included in the review: miscarriage, preterm labour, maternal satisfaction, fetal anomalies, intrauterine growth restriction, low birthweight. There are no large-scale RCTs to assess heartburn relief in pregnancy. This review of nine small studies (which involved data from only four small studies) indicates that there are limited data suggesting that heartburn in pregnancy could be completely relieved by pharmaceutical treatment. Three outcomes were assessed and assigned a quality rating using the GRADE methods. Evidence from two trials for the outcome of complete relief of heartburn was assessed as of moderate quality. Evidence for the outcomes of partial heartburn relief and side effects was graded to be of very low quality. Downgrading decisions were based in part on the small size of the trials and on heterogenous and imprecise results.There are insufficient data to assess acupuncture versus no treatment and no data to assess other comparisons (miscarriage, preterm labour, maternal satisfaction, fetal anomalies, intrauterine growth restriction, low birthweight).Further RCTs are needed to fully evaluate the effectiveness of interventions for heartburn in pregnancy. Future research should also address other medications such as histamine 2-receptor antagonists, promotility drugs, proton pump inhibitors, and a raft-forming alginate reflux suppressant in treatment of heartburn in pregnancy. More research is needed on acupuncture and other complimentary therapies as treatments for heartburn in pregnancy. Future research should also evaluate any adverse outcomes, maternal satisfaction with treatment and measure pregnant women's quality of life in relation to the intervention.

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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 2%
Unknown 64 98%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Unknown 64 98%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 02 November 2016.
All research outputs
#2,229,925
of 12,724,322 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,124
of 10,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,872
of 278,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#175
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,724,322 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,409 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 278,265 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.