EAL

GDM: Physical Activity (2008)

Citation:

Study Design:

Class:

- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.

Quality Rating:

Research Purpose:

Outline specific recommendations and concerns related to exercise and their physiologic bases unique to pregnant women.

Inclusion Criteria:

Article inclusion criteria not specified.

Exclusion Criteria:

Not specified.

Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment: Article selection methods not described.

Design: Technical Bulletin

Blinding used (if applicable): Not applicable.

Intervention (if applicable): Not applicable.

Statistical Analysis: Not applicable.

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements: Not described

Dependent Variables: Not described.

Independent Variables: Not described.

Control Variables: Not described.

Description of Actual Data Sample:

Initial N: 44 references

Attrition (final N): 44

Age: Not specified.

Ethnicity: Not specified.

Other relevant demographics: Not specified.

Anthropometrics: Not specified

Location: Not specified.

Summary of Results:

In the absence of either obstetric or medical complications, pregnant women can continue to exercise and derive related benefits.

Women who have achieved cardiovascular fitness prior to pregnancy should be able to safely maintain that level of fitness through pregnancy and the postpartum period. Depending on the individual's needs and the physiologic changes associated with pregnancy, women may have to modify their specific exercise regimens.

Despite findings that suggest lower birth weights among offspring of women who continue to exercise vigorously throughout pregnancy, there currently are no data to confirm that exercise during pregnancy has any deleterious effects on the fetus with few exceptions.

While maternal fitness and sense of well-being may be enhanced by exercise, no level of exercise during pregnancy has been conclusively demonstrated to be beneficial in improving perinatal outcomes.

Author Conclusion:

None stated.

Funding Source:

Other:

no funding reported

Reviewer Comments:

The bulletin is well researched and informative.

The review of evidence and recommendations may be used to guide care.

Quality Criteria Checklist: Review Articles
Relevance Questions
	1.	Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients?	Yes
	1.	Will the answer if true, have a direct bearing on the health of patients?	Yes
	2.	Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about?	Yes
	2.	Is the outcome or topic something that patients/clients/population groups would care about?	Yes
	3.	Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice?	Yes
	3.	Is the problem addressed in the review one that is relevant to dietetics practice?	Yes
	4.	Will the information, if true, require a change in practice?	No
	4.	Will the information, if true, require a change in practice?	No

Validity Questions
	1.	Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate?	Yes
	1.	Was the question for the review clearly focused and appropriate?	Yes
	2.	Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described?	No
	2.	Was the search strategy used to locate relevant studies comprehensive? Were the databases searched and the search termsused described?	No
	3.	Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased?	No
	3.	Were explicit methods used to select studies to include in the review? Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified andappropriate? Wereselectionmethods unbiased?	No
	4.	Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible?	No
	4.	Was there an appraisal of the quality and validity of studies included in the review? Were appraisal methodsspecified,appropriate, andreproducible?	No
	5.	Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined?	Yes
	5.	Were specific treatments/interventions/exposures described? Were treatments similar enough to be combined?	Yes
	6.	Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered?	Yes
	6.	Was the outcome of interest clearly indicated? Were other potential harms and benefits considered?	Yes
	7.	Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently acrossstudies and groups? Was thereappropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described?	No
	7.	Were processes for data abstraction, synthesis, and analysis described? Were they applied consistently acrossstudies and groups? Was thereappropriate use of qualitative and/or quantitative synthesis? Was variation in findings among studies analyzed? Were heterogeneity issued considered? If data from studies were aggregated for meta-analysis, was the procedure described?	No
	8.	Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels ofsignificance and/or confidence intervals included?	Yes
	8.	Are the results clearly presented in narrative and/or quantitative terms? If summary statistics are used, are levels ofsignificance and/or confidence intervals included?	Yes
	9.	Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed?	Yes
	9.	Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Are limitations ofthe review identified anddiscussed?	Yes
	10.	Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely?	Yes
	10.	Was bias due to the review's funding or sponsorship unlikely?	Yes