Poprzeczny Amanda J, Deussen Andrea R, Mitchell Megan, Slade Laura, Louise Jennie, Dodd Jodie M
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Robinson Research Institute, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Women's and Babies Division, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The Women's and Children's Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
BJOG. 2025 May;132(6):709-723. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.18084. Epub 2025 Feb 3.
Guidelines recommending regular physical activity in pregnancy for improving pregnancy outcomes are informed by published meta-analyses. Inclusion of randomised trials of poor methodological quality may bias effect estimates.
To assess the validity of these recommendations by focusing on trial quality.
Systematic search of PubMed, PubMed Central, Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL from inception to 14 December 2023.
Randomised trials evaluating an antenatal physical activity intervention alone, compared with no such intervention.
Trial quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Independent of this, studies were grouped based on degree of deviation from the intention to treat principle. Sequential meta-analysis was performed in which greater degrees of potential bias were allowed. Between intervention group comparisons used, relative risks or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals for dichotomous outcomes and continuous outcomes, respectively.
Overall, the quality of trial reporting was low. Only 5 trials (12.5%) were performed and analysed in keeping with the intention to treat principle. When considering only those trials performed rigorously, there was no evidence that antenatal physical activity improves pregnancy outcomes or limits gestational weight gain (WMD -0.60 kg; 95% CI -2.17, 0.98 WMD -0.60 kg; 95% CI -2.17, 0.98).
When considering only trials at no/negligible risk of bias, antenatal physical activity interventions were not associated with improved pregnancy outcomes. Most trials were not methodologically rigorous. Incorporation of such meta-analyses into pregnancy care guidelines may result in inaccurate recommendations.
关于孕期定期进行体育活动以改善妊娠结局的指南是基于已发表的荟萃分析制定的。纳入方法学质量较差的随机试验可能会使效应估计产生偏差。
通过关注试验质量来评估这些建议的有效性。
对PubMed、PubMed Central、Ovid Medline、Embase、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库和CINAHL进行系统检索,检索时间从建库至2023年12月14日。
评估单纯产前体育活动干预与无此类干预相比的随机试验。
使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估试验质量。除此之外,根据与意向性分析原则的偏离程度对研究进行分组。进行序贯荟萃分析,允许更大程度的潜在偏倚。在干预组之间进行比较时,分别使用相对风险或平均差以及95%置信区间来分析二分结局和连续结局。
总体而言,试验报告的质量较低。只有5项试验(12.5%)按照意向性分析原则进行实施和分析。仅考虑那些严格实施的试验时,没有证据表明产前体育活动能改善妊娠结局或限制孕期体重增加(加权均数差 -0.60 kg;95%置信区间 -2.17,0.98 加权均数差 -0.60 kg;95%置信区间 -2.17,0.98)。
仅考虑偏倚风险为无/可忽略不计的试验时,产前体育活动干预与改善妊娠结局无关。大多数试验在方法学上并不严谨。将此类荟萃分析纳入妊娠护理指南可能会导致不准确的建议。