| Literature DB >> 31108910 |
Federica Amati1, Sondus Hassounah2, Alexandra Swaka3.
Abstract
(1) Background: Pregnancy outcomes for both mother and child are affected by many environmental factors. The importance of pregnancy for 'early life programming' is well established and maternal nutrition is an important factor contributing to a favourable environment for developing offspring. We aim to assess whether following a Mediterranean Diet during pregnancy is beneficial for maternal and offspring outcomes; (2)Entities:
Keywords: Mediterranean diet; maternal nutrition; offspring health
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31108910 PMCID: PMC6566342 DOI: 10.3390/nu11051098
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
The based on National Institutes of Health (NIH) study quality assessment tools for controlled trials 1.
| Criteria | Yes | No | Other |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cohort/cross-sectional studies | (CD, NR, NA) * | ||
| 1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated? | |||
| 2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined? | |||
| 3. Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%? | |||
| 4. Were all the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same time period)? Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study prespecified and applied uniformly to all participants? | |||
| 5. Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided? | |||
| 6. For the analyses in this paper, were the exposure(s) of interest measured prior to the outcome(s) being measured? | |||
| 7. Was the timeframe sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between exposure and outcome if it existed? | |||
| 8. For exposures that can vary in amount or level, did the study examine different levels of the exposure as related to the outcome (e.g., categories of exposure, or exposure measured as continuous variable)? | |||
| 9. Were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? | |||
| 10. Was the exposure(s) assessed more than once over time? | |||
| 11. Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? | |||
| 12. Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants? | |||
| 13. Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less? | |||
| 14. Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)? | |||
| Quality Rating (Good, Fair, or Poor) | |||
| Rater #1 FA: | |||
| Rater #2 AS: | |||
| Additional Comments (If POOR, please state why): | |||
| Randomized Control Trials | |||
| 1. Was the study described as randomized, a randomized trial, a randomized clinical trial, or an RCT? | |||
| 2. Was the method of randomization adequate (i.e., use of randomly generated assignment)? | |||
| 3. Was the treatment allocation concealed (so that assignments could not be predicted)? | |||
| 4. Were study participants and providers blinded to the treatment group assignment? | |||
| 5. Were the people assessing the outcomes blinded to the participants’ group assignments? | |||
| 6. Were the groups similar at baseline on important characteristics that could affect outcomes (e.g., demographics, risk factors, co-morbid conditions)? | |||
| 7. Was the overall drop-out rate from the study at endpoint 20% or lower of the number allocated to treatment? | |||
| 8. Was the differential drop-out rate (between treatment groups) at the endpoint 15 percentage points or lower? | |||
| 9. Was there high adherence to the intervention protocols for each treatment group? | |||
| 10. Were other interventions avoided or similar in the groups (e.g., similar background treatments)? | |||
| 11. Were outcomes assessed using valid and reliable measures, implemented consistently across all study participants? | |||
| 12. Did the authors report that the sample size was sufficiently large to be able to detect a difference in the main outcome between groups with at least 80% power? | |||
| 13. Were outcomes reported or subgroups analyzed prespecified (i.e., identified before analyses were conducted)? | |||
| 14. Were all randomized participants analyzed in the group to which they were originally assigned, i.e., did they use an intention-to-treat analysis? | |||
| Quality Rating (Good, Fair, or Poor) | |||
| Rater #1 initials: | |||
| Rater #2 initials: | |||
| Additional Comments (If POOR, please state why): |
* CD, cannot determine; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported; 1 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Study Quality Assessment Tools. NHLBI. Available at: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools.
The quality assessment score values: <4 = Low, 4–7 = Medium, 8–10 = High.
| Author | Design | Score (1–10) | Quality Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assaf-Balut, C; Garcia de la Torre, N; A Duran et al. [ | Prospective randomized interventional study | 8 | High |
| Assaf-Balut, Carla; Garcia de la Torre, et al. [ | Prospective randomized controlled trial (The St Carlos GDM prevention study) | 9 | High |
| Botto, Lorenzo D.; Krikov, Sergey; et al. [ | Multicentre population-based case-control study | 9 | High |
| Chatzi, L.; Rifas-Shiman, S.; [ | Prospective Cohort study (Project Viva + Rhea Study) | 9 | High |
| Chatzi L.; Torrent, M.; et al. [ | Prospective Cohort study | 7 | High |
| Chatzi, L.; Garcia, R.; et. al. [ | Cohort study (INMA and Rhea Study) | 9 | High |
| E, Parlapani; et al. [ | Cohort study | 7 | Medium |
| Fernandez-Barres, S.; et al. [ | Birth Cohort study (INMA) | 8 | High |
| Gesteiro, E.; Rodriguez B., et al. [ | Cohort study | 7 | Medium |
| Gesteiro, E.; Bastida S., et al. [ | Cross-sectional study | 7 | Medium |
| Gonzalez-Nahm, S. et al. [ | Cohort study | 8 | High |
| Haugen, M.; et al. [ | Prospective Cohort study (MoBa) | 8 | High |
| House, J.; et al. [ | Prospective Cohort study | 9 | High |
| Castro-Rodriguez, J.; et al. [ | Cohort study | 7 | Medium |
| Lange, N. [ | Longitudinal pre-birth cohort study | 9 | High |
| Mantzoros, C.; et al. [ | Prospective cohort study (Project Viva) | 8 | High |
| Monteagudo, C.; et al. [ | Cohort study | 8 | High |
| Peraita-Costa, I. et al. [ | Retrospective cross-sectional population-based study | 7 | Medium |
| Saunders, L.; et al. [ | Cohort study (TIMOUN) | 8 | High |
| Steenweg-de Graaff, J.; et al. [ | Population-based cohort (The Generation R Study) | 9 | High |
| Vujkovic, M.; et al. [ | Case-control study | 7 | Medium |
| Smith, L.; et al. [ | Population-based cohort study | 7 | Medium |
GDM = gestational diabetes mellitus, INMA = INfancia y Medio Ambiente study, TIMOUN= French Caribeean Mother Child cohort study.
The outcomes and effect estimates for the included studies.
| Authors | Design and Cohort | Included Participants and Gestational Age | Intervention Type and Comparator | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assaf-Balut, C; Garcia de la Torre, N; A Duran et al. [ | Prospective randomized interventional study | 874; | MD nutritional therapy | As an early nutritional intervention, MD reduces the incidence of GDM. |
| Assaf-Balut, Carla; Garcia de la Torre, et al. [ | Prospective randomized controlled trial | 874; | MD nutritional therapy with additional evoo and pistachios | Supplemented MD reduces the incidence of GDM as an early nutritional intervention. |
| Botto, Lorenzo D.; Krikov, Sergey; et al. [ | Multicentre population-based case-control study | Mothers of babies with major non-syndromic congenital heart defects ( | A priori defined MDS with Quartiles 1–4 (worst to best) | Better diet quality is associated with a reduced occurrence of some conotruncal and septal heart defects |
| Chatzi, L.; Rifas-Shiman, S.; [ | Cohort study; Project Viva | Mother-child pairs from | MDA with a priori defined MDS through FFQ | Greater adherence to MD during pregnancy may protect against excess offspring cardiometabolic risk. |
| Chatzi L.; Torrent, M.; et al. [ | Cohort study | 507 mothers during the gestational period; | Impact of MDA during pregnancy on asthma and atopy in childhood using a priori defined MDS | Adherence to Med Diet during pregnancy support protective effect against asthma-like symptoms and atopy in childhood |
| Chatzi, L.; Garcia, R.; et al. [ | Cohort study; | During pregnancy with follow-up within 1 year post-gestational; | MDA calculated through completed FFQ | High meat intake during pregnancy may increase the risk of a wheeze in the first year of life; high dairy intake may decrease it |
| E, Parlapani; et al. [ | Cohort study | 82 women delivering preterm singletons ≤34 weeks | FFQ and MDA | High adherence to MD, may favourably affect intrauterine growth (IUGR), premature birth and maternal hypertension (HTN); |
| Fernandez-Barres, S.; et al. [ | Cohort study; | 1827 mother-child pairs, assessed during pregnancy | FFQ and MDA | Adherence to MD during pregnancy not associated with a risk of childhood obesity, but is linked to a lower waist circumference; |
| Gesteiro, E.; Rodriguez B., et al. [ | Cohort study | 35 women with ‘adequate’ or ‘inadequate’ diets according to HEI (healthy eating index) and MDA score; | 13 point MDA score via FFQ | Maternal diets during the 1st trimester with low HEIs or adherence to MD have a negative effect on insulin markers at birth; |
| Gesteiro, E.; Sanchez-Muiz FJ, et al. [ | Cross-sectional study | 53 mother-neonate pairs; | Maternal MDA and offspring lipoprotein profile | Neonates of mothers who consumed low adherence of MD during pregnancy presented impaired lipoprotein and higher homocysteine levels; |
| Gonzalez-Nahm, S. et al. [ | Cohort study | 390 women whose infants had DNA methylation cord blood data available; | MDA via FFQ | Suggests that maternal diet can have a sex-specific impact on infant DNA methylation at specific imprinted DMRs; |
| Haugen, M.; et al. [ | Cohort study; | MD criteria met: 569 women; 1–4 criteria met: 25,397 women; 0 MD criteria met: 159 women; | MDA via FFQ | Women who adhered to the MD criteria did not have a reduced risk of preterm birth compared to women who met none of the criteria; |
| House, J.; et al. [ | Cohort study; | 325 mother-infant pairs; | MDA via FFQ | Offspring of women with high MDA less likely to exhibit neurobehavioural effects: |
| Castro-Rodriguez, J.; et al. [ | Cohort study | Gestational period; follow-up in 1000 preschoolers (at 1.5 yrs and 4 yrs) | MDA via FFQ | Low fruit and high meat consumption by the child had a negative effect on allergic responses (wheezing, rhinitis, or dermatitis); as did the high consumption of pasta and potatoes by the mother |
| Lange, N. [ | Longitudinal prebirth cohort study; | 1376 mother-infant pairs; | MDA via FFQ | Dietary pattern during pregnancy not associated with recurrent wheeze; |
| Mantzoros, C.; et al. [ | Prospective cohort study; | 780 women; | MDA | Adherence to MD during pregnancy not associated with cord blood leptin or adiponectin; |
| Monteagudo, C.; et al. [ | Cohort study | 320 umbilical cord serum samples | MDS-p (med diet score adapted to pregnancy) | Adherence to the MD and folic acid supplementation during pregnancy may indicate being overweight in newborns; |
| Peraita-Costa, I. et al. [ | Retrospective cross-sectional population-based study | 492 mother-child pairs; | MDA with two groups identified: low and high adherence | Low adherence to an MD was not associated with a higher risk of a low birthweight newborn; |
| Saunders, L.; et al. [ | Cohort study; | 728 pregnant women who delivered liveborn singletons with no malformations | Semi-quantitative FFQ analysed for MDA | Results suggest that adherence to a Caribbean diet may include benefits of MD, contributing to a reduction in preterm delivery in overweight women; |
| Steenweg-de Graaff, J.; et al. [ | Population-based cohort; | During pregnancy at median 13.5 weeks; Post-gestation in 3104 children at 1.5, 3, and 6 years of age | MDA via FFQ | High adherence to traditional Dutch diet and low adherence to MD are linked to an increased risk of child externalizing problems; |
| Vujkovic, M.; et al. [ | Case-control study | 50 mothers of children with Spinal Bifida; 81 control mothers | Dietary assessment via FFQ | MD seems to show an association with reducing the risk of offspring being affected by SB; |
| Smith, L.; et al. [ | Population-based cohort study | 922 LMPT; 965 term births; | Maternal interview for dietary factors: MDA, low fruit and vegetable intake, use of folic acid supplements | Women with 0 adherence to MD were nearly twice as likely to deliver LMPT; RR 1.81 (1.04 to 3.14) |
MD = Mediterranean Diet, MDS = Mediterranean Diet Score, MDA = Mediterranean Diet Adherance, FFQ = Food Frequency Questionnaire, HEI = Healthy Eating Index.
A summary of findings from our review of the evidence.
| Health Outcomes | Impact of Maternal MD | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome Variable | Protective | Negative | Inconclusive |
| Allergic Disorders | 3 (27,28,36) | 1 (37) | |
| Premature birth, birth weight, childhood obesity | 5 (29,30,39,41,44) | 2 (30,36) | |
| Cardiometabolic and congenital defects | 3 (25,26,43) | ||
| Gestational diabetes & pre-eclampsia | 2 (23,24,29) | ||
| DNA Methylation | 2 (33,35) | ||
| Biomarkers | 2 (31,32) | 1(38) | |
| Behavioural development | 1 (42) | ||
Figure 1The flow diagram of the process for study selection.
Figure A1The papers excluded after full-text screening.