Dagfinn Aune1, Ola Didrik Saugstad, Tore Henriksen, Serena Tonstad. 1. From the aDepartment of Preventive Cardiology, Oslo University Hospital Ullevål, Oslo, Norway; bDepartment of Public Health and General Practice, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway; cDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom; dDepartment of Pediatric Research, Rikshospitalet, Oslo University Hospital, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway; eSection of obstetrics, Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Rikshospitalet, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway; and fDepartment of Health Promotion and Education, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity has been hypothesized to reduce the risk of preeclampsia, but epidemiologic studies have not shown consistent results. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Ovid databases were searched for case-control and cohort studies of physical activity and preeclampsia up to 2 November 2012. We estimated summary relative risks (RRs) using a random effects model. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included. The summary RR for high versus low prepregnancy physical activity was 0.65 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.47-0.89, I = 0%; n = 5). In the dose-response analysis, the summary RR was 0.72 (0.53-0.99; I = 0%; n = 3) per 1 hour per day and 0.78 (0.63-0.96; I = 0%; n = 2) per 20 metabolic equivalent task (MET)-hours per week. The summary RR for high versus low physical activity in early pregnancy was 0.79 (0.70-0.91; I = 0%; n = 11). In the dose-response analysis, the summary RR per 1 hour per day was 0.83 (0.72-0.95; I = 21%; n = 7) and 0.85 (0.68-1.07; I = 69%; n = 3) per 20 MET-hours per week. A nonlinear association was observed for physical activity before pregnancy and risk of preeclampsia (test for nonlinearity, P = 0.03), but not for physical activity in early pregnancy (test for nonlinearity, P = 0.37), with a flattening of the curve at higher levels of activity. Both walking and greater intensity of physical activity were inversely associated with preeclampsia. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests a reduced risk of preeclampsia with increasing levels of physical activity before pregnancy and during early pregnancy.
BACKGROUND: Physical activity has been hypothesized to reduce the risk of preeclampsia, but epidemiologic studies have not shown consistent results. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Ovid databases were searched for case-control and cohort studies of physical activity and preeclampsia up to 2 November 2012. We estimated summary relative risks (RRs) using a random effects model. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included. The summary RR for high versus low prepregnancy physical activity was 0.65 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.47-0.89, I = 0%; n = 5). In the dose-response analysis, the summary RR was 0.72 (0.53-0.99; I = 0%; n = 3) per 1 hour per day and 0.78 (0.63-0.96; I = 0%; n = 2) per 20 metabolic equivalent task (MET)-hours per week. The summary RR for high versus low physical activity in early pregnancy was 0.79 (0.70-0.91; I = 0%; n = 11). In the dose-response analysis, the summary RR per 1 hour per day was 0.83 (0.72-0.95; I = 21%; n = 7) and 0.85 (0.68-1.07; I = 69%; n = 3) per 20 MET-hours per week. A nonlinear association was observed for physical activity before pregnancy and risk of preeclampsia (test for nonlinearity, P = 0.03), but not for physical activity in early pregnancy (test for nonlinearity, P = 0.37), with a flattening of the curve at higher levels of activity. Both walking and greater intensity of physical activity were inversely associated with preeclampsia. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests a reduced risk of preeclampsia with increasing levels of physical activity before pregnancy and during early pregnancy.
Authors: Hong Jiang; Li-Na Wang; Yan Liu; Ming Li; Min Wu; Yue Yin; Le Ma; Chang-Rui Wu Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-04-18 Impact factor: 1.779
Authors: Judith Stephenson; Nicola Heslehurst; Jennifer Hall; Danielle A J M Schoenaker; Jayne Hutchinson; Janet E Cade; Lucilla Poston; Geraldine Barrett; Sarah R Crozier; Mary Barker; Kalyanaraman Kumaran; Chittaranjan S Yajnik; Janis Baird; Gita D Mishra Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Sylvia E Badon; Alyson J Littman; Kwun Chuen Gary Chan; Mahlet G Tadesse; Patricia L Stapleton; Theo K Bammler; Tanya K Sorensen; Michelle A Williams; Daniel A Enquobahrie Journal: Epigenomics Date: 2018-10-16 Impact factor: 4.778
Authors: Loretta Dipietro; Kelly R Evenson; Bonny Bloodgood; Kyle Sprow; Richard P Troiano; Katrina L Piercy; Alison Vaux-Bjerke; Kenneth E Powell Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 5.411