↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Effects of restricted caffeine intake by mother on fetal, neonatal and pregnancy outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
26 tweeters
facebook
9 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
238 Mendeley
Title
Effects of restricted caffeine intake by mother on fetal, neonatal and pregnancy outcomes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006965.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shayesteh Jahanfar, Sharifah Halimah Jaafar

Abstract

Maternal caffeine consumption during pregnancy may have adverse effects on fetal, neonatal and maternal outcomes. This review investigates the effects of restricting caffeine intake by mothers on fetal, neonatal and pregnancy outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (16 January 2015), scanned bibliographies of published studies and corresponded with investigators. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including quasi-RCTs investigating the effect of caffeine and/or supplementary caffeine versus restricted caffeine intake or placebo on pregnancy outcomes. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Two studies met the inclusion criteria but only one contributed data for the prespecified outcomes. Caffeinated instant coffee (568 women) was compared with decaffeinated instant coffee (629 women) and it was found that reducing the caffeine intake of regular coffee drinkers (3+ cups/day) during the second and third trimester by an average of 182 mg/day did not affect birthweight (g) (mean difference (MD) 20.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -48.68 to 88.68; one study, 1197 participants; low quality evidence), preterm birth (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.37; one study, 1153 participants; low quality evidence) or small-for-gestational age (RR 0.97, 95% 0.57 to 1.64; one study, 1150 participants). Risk of bias was moderate in both studies.Two outcomes were assessed and assigned a quality rating using the GRADE methods. Evidence for these two outcomes (birthweight and preterm birth) was assessed as of low quality, with downgrading decisions due to the relatively small sample sizes and the wide confidence interval of the one included trial that contributed data. Neither of the studies reported on any of the other primary outcomes (low birthweight; first trimester fetal loss; perinatal mortality; fetal hypoxia; fetal tachycardia) or on any of the reviews neonatal or maternal outcomes. There is insufficient evidence to confirm or refute the effectiveness of caffeine avoidance on birthweight or other pregnancy outcomes. There is a need to conduct high-quality, double-blinded RCTs to determine whether caffeine has any effect on pregnancy outcome.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 238 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Unknown 232 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 49 21%
Student > Master 38 16%
Researcher 27 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 11%
Other 17 7%
Other 28 12%
Unknown 52 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 4%
Other 35 15%
Unknown 61 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 121. 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 30 March 2021.
All research outputs
#199,632
of 17,587,008 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#386
of 11,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,983
of 242,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#13
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,587,008 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 242,469 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.