↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Bed rest with and without hospitalisation in multiple pregnancy for improving perinatal outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 Mendeley
Title
Bed rest with and without hospitalisation in multiple pregnancy for improving perinatal outcomes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012031.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katharina da Silva Lopes, Yo Takemoto, Erika Ota, Shinji Tanigaki, Rintaro Mori

Abstract

Strict or partial bed rest in hospital or at home is commonly recommended for women with multiple pregnancy to improve pregnancy outcomes. In order to advise women to rest in bed for any length of time, a policy for clinical practice needs to be supported by reliable evidence and weighed against possible adverse effects resulting from prolonged activity restriction. The objective of this review is to assess the effectiveness of bed rest in hospital or at home to improve perinatal outcomes in women with a multiple pregnancy. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 May 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We selected all individual and cluster-randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of strict or partial bed rest at home or in hospital compared with no activity restriction during multiple pregnancy. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and methodological quality. We evaluated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach and summarised it in 'Summary of findings' tables. We included six trials, involving a total of 636 women with a twin or triplet pregnancy (total of 1298 babies). We assessed all of the included trials as having a low risk of bias for random sequence generation. Apart from one trial with an unclear risk of bias, we judged all remaining trials to be of low risk of bias for allocation concealment.Five trials (495 women and 1016 babies) compared strict bed rest in hospital with no activity restriction at home. There was no difference in the risk of very preterm birth (risk ratio (RR) 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.58, five trials, 495 women, assuming complete correlation between twins/triplets, low-quality evidence), perinatal mortality (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.21, five trials, 1016 neonates, assuming independence between twins/triplets, low-quality evidence) and low birthweight (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.21, three trials, 502 neonates, assuming independence between twins/triplets, low-quality evidence). We observed no differences for the risk of small-for-gestational age (SGA) (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.01, two trials, 293 women, assuming independence between twins/triplets, low-quality evidence) and prelabour preterm rupture of the membrane (PPROM) (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.38, three trials, 276 women, low-quality evidence). However, strict bed rest in hospital was associated with increased spontaneous onset of labour (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09, P = 0.004, four trials, 488 women) and a higher mean birthweight (mean difference (MD) 136.99 g, 95% CI 39.92 to 234.06, P = 0.006, three trials, 314 women) compared with no activity restriction at home.Only one trial (141 women and 282 babies) compared partial bed rest in hospital with no activity restriction at home. There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of very preterm birth (RR 2.30, 95% CI 0.84 to 6.27, 141 women, assuming complete correlation between twins, low-quality evidence) and perinatal mortality (RR 4.17, 95% CI 0.90 to 19.31, 282 neonates, assuming complete independence twins, low-quality evidence) between the intervention and control group. Low birthweight was not reported in this trial. We found no differences in the risk of PPROM and SGA between women receiving partial bed rest and the control group (low-quality evidence). Women on partial bed rest in hospital were less likely to develop gestational hypertension compared with women without activity restriction at home (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.59, P = 0.0004, 141 women).Strict or partial bed rest in hospital was found to have no impact on other secondary outcomes. None of the trials reported on costs of the intervention or adverse effects such as the development of venous thromboembolism or psychosocial effects. The evidence to date is insufficient to inform a policy of routine bed rest in hospital or at home for women with a multiple pregnancy. There is a need for large-scale, multicenter randomised controlled trials to evaluate the benefits, adverse effects and costs of bed rest before definitive conclusions can be drawn.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 189 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 20%
Student > Bachelor 28 15%
Researcher 21 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Other 12 6%
Other 28 15%
Unknown 44 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 17%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Psychology 10 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 52 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 05 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,700,491
of 16,540,864 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,269
of 11,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,678
of 263,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#109
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,540,864 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 263,695 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 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 55% of its contemporaries.