↓ Skip to main content

The effects of culture on guideline discordant gestational weight gain: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, November 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 (74th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
The effects of culture on guideline discordant gestational weight gain: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0132-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Taru Manyanga, Danilo F. da Silva, Zachary M. Ferraro, Alysha L. J. Harvey, Shanna Wilson, Holly N. Ockenden, Kristi B. Adamo

Abstract

A significant proportion of women exceeds or does not meet the Institute of Medicine's gestational weight gain (GWG) guidelines. Inadequate, excessive GWG or weight loss during pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of negative maternal and fetal outcomes. Among the many determinants of GWG identified in the 2009 Institute of Medicine guidelines, culture was named as one of the few whose influence has not been fully explored. Some cultural beliefs may erroneously promote overeating as "eating for two" and discourage physical activity during pregnancy, but there is lack of empirical evidence on how culture affects GWG. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine the effects of culture on GWG. Ten electronic databases will be searched to identify studies reporting on the effects of culture on GWG. Grey literature, published conference abstracts, websites of relevant organizations and reference lists of included studies will also be searched. Studies that report on effects of culture, acculturation, ethnicity, race, nationality, ancestry and identity on GWG in adult women will be included. Quality of evidence will be evaluated using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluations (GRADE) approach to rating evidence. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be conducted by two independent reviewers, with disagreements being resolved by consensus or third party adjudication as needed. Formal meta-analyses will be conducted among included studies that are sufficiently statistically and clinically homogeneous. This review will provide a comprehensive assessment and synthesis of current evidence and will draw attention to potential gaps where future research on the effects of culture on guideline discordant gestational weight gain remains to be conducted. PROSPERO CRD42015023399.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Poland 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 31%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 28%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Sports and Recreations 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 8 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 10 November 2015.
All research outputs
#1,246,807
of 6,554,440 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#243
of 512 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,170
of 210,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#19
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,554,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 512 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 210,238 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 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 58% of its contemporaries.