Methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines for nutrition and weight gain during pregnancy: a systematic review

Author:

Grammatikopoulou Maria G12ORCID,Theodoridis Xenophon23ORCID,Gkiouras Konstantinos23ORCID,Lampropoulou Maria124,Petalidou Arianna3,Patelida Maria1,Tsirou Efrosini5,Papoutsakis Constantina6ORCID,Goulis Dimitrios G5ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Nutritional Sciences and Dietetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, International Hellenic University, Thessaloniki, Greece

2. Medical School, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

3. Medical School, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece

4. Fourth Department of Pediatrics, Papageorgiou General Hospital, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

5. Unit of Reproductive Endocrinology, First Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

6. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Abstract

Abstract Context Ensuring a healthy pregnancy and achieving optimal gestational weight gain (GWG) are important for maternal and child health. Nevertheless, the nutritional advice provided during pregnancy is often conflicting, suggesting limited adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Objective The aim of this review was to identify all CPGs on maternal nutrition and GWG and to critically appraise their methodological quality. Data Sources The MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, Guidelines International Network, and BMJ Best Practice databases, along with gray literature, were searched from inception until February 2019 for CPGs and consensus, position, and practice papers. Study Selection Clinical practice guidelines published in English and containing advice on maternal nutrition or GWG were eligible. Data Extraction Two authors independently extracted data on items pertaining to maternal nutrition or GWG, and CPGs were appraised using the AGREE II instrument. Results Twenty-two CPGs were included. All scored adequately in the “scope” domain, but most were considered inadequate with regard to stakeholder involvement, rigor of development, applicability, and editorial independence. Many CPGs lacked patient or dietician involvement, and more than half did not disclose funding sources or conflicts of interest. Guidance on GWG was based mostly on Institute of Medicine thresholds, while nutrition recommendations appeared scattered and heterogeneous. Conclusion Despite the importance of maternal nutrition and the plethora of advising bodies publishing relevant guidance, there is room for substantial improvement in terms of development standards and content of nutritional recommendations. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42019120898.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Nutrition and Dietetics,Medicine (miscellaneous)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3