↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Pyridoxine (vitamin B6) supplementation during pregnancy or labour for maternal and neonatal outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
8 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
375 Mendeley
Title
Pyridoxine (vitamin B6) supplementation during pregnancy or labour for maternal and neonatal outcomes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000179.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rehana A Salam, Nadeem F Zuberi, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Abstract

Vitamin B6 plays vital roles in numerous metabolic processes in the human body, such as nervous system development and functioning. It has been associated with some benefits in non-randomised studies, such as higher Apgar scores, higher birthweights, and reduced incidence of pre-eclampsia and preterm birth. Recent studies also suggest a protection against certain congenital malformations. To evaluate the clinical effects of vitamin B6 supplementation during pregnancy and/or labour. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (31 March 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We included randomised controlled trials comparing vitamin B6 administration in pregnancy and/or labour with: placebos, no supplementations, or supplements not containing vitamin B6. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. For this update, we assessed methodological quality of the included trials using risk of bias and the GRADE approach. Four trials (1646 women) were included. The method of randomisation was unclear in all four trials and allocation concealment was reported in only one trial. Two trials used blinding of participants and outcomes. Vitamin B6 as oral capsules or lozenges resulted in decreased risk of dental decay in pregnant women (capsules: risk ratio (RR) 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 0.98; one trial, n = 371, low quality of evidence; lozenges: RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.83; one trial, n = 342, low quality of evidence). A small trial showed reduced mean birthweights with vitamin B6 supplementation (mean difference -0.23 kg; 95% CI -0.42 to -0.04; n = 33; one trial). We did not find any statistically significant differences in the risk of eclampsia (capsules: n = 1242; three trials; lozenges: n = 944; one trial), pre-eclampsia (capsules n = 1197; two trials, low quality of evidence; lozenges: n = 944; one trial, low-quality evidence) or low Apgar scores at one minute (oral pyridoxine: n = 45; one trial), between supplemented and non-supplemented groups. No differences were found in Apgar scores at five minutes, or breastmilk production between controls and women receiving oral (n = 24; one trial) or intramuscular (n = 24; one trial) loading doses of pyridoxine at labour. Overall, the risk of bias was judged as unclear. The quality of the evidence using GRADE was low for both pre-eclampsia and dental decay. The other primary outcomes, preterm birth before 37 weeks and low birthweight, were not reported in the included trials. There were few trials, reporting few clinical outcomes and mostly with unclear trial methodology and inadequate follow-up. There is not enough evidence to detect clinical benefits of vitamin B6 supplementation in pregnancy and/or labour other than one trial suggesting protection against dental decay. Future trials assessing this and other outcomes such as orofacial clefts, cardiovascular malformations, neurological development, preterm birth, pre-eclampsia and adverse events are required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 375 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 371 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 53 14%
Student > Bachelor 51 14%
Researcher 41 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 8%
Other 24 6%
Other 57 15%
Unknown 120 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 109 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 49 13%
Social Sciences 16 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 3%
Other 42 11%
Unknown 133 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 22 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,341,896
of 25,383,278 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,878
of 12,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,435
of 275,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#63
of 266 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,383,278 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,915 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 275,304 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 266 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.