Skip to main content
. 2023 Jun 16;117(Suppl 2):S107–S117. doi: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2022.10.022

Table 3.

Evidence synthesis: Antenatal interventions that may reduce the risk of LBW, PTB, SGA, or stillbirth.

Possible positive effect1 Birth outcome Relative risk2 Quality of evidence4
Provision of insecticide-treated bed nets in pregnancy LBW 0.80 [0.64, 1.00] (N=3506)3 Moderate
Treatment of documented periodontal disease during pregnancy LBW 0.67 [0.48, 0.95] (N=3470) Low
Screening and treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria in pregnancy LBW 0.64 [0.45, 0.93] (N=1437) Low
PTB 0.34 [0.13, 0.88] (N=327)
Dietary education of pregnant women with undernutrition LBW 0.46 [0.27, 0.79] (N=3440)3 Low
Dietary supplementation with high dose calcium LBW 0.85 [0.72, 1.01] (N=14883) Low
PTB 0.76 [0.60, 0.97] (N=15275)
Professionally provided psychosocial support for women at risk of giving birth to LBW or preterm infant PTB 0.91 [0.83, 1.00] (N=11036) Moderate
Progesterone supplementation for women at increased risk of PTB PTB 0.69 [0.53, 0.87] (N=3706) Low
Bedrest among women at risk for preterm delivery LBW 0.92 [0.85, 1.00] (N=1837) 3 Moderate
1

Possible positive effect: The intervention may reduce the risk of selected birth outcome. a. At least two RCTs included in a meta-analysis or IPD analysis, 95% CI of the point estimate of the RR is entirely below 1, but there is concern about the quality of the data, or b. at least two moderate-to-high quality RCTs included in a meta-analysis or IPD analysis, 95% CI of the point estimate of the RR includes 1 but 90% CI of the point estimate of the RR is entirely below 1, or One moderate-to-high quality RCT, 95% CI of the point estimate of the RR is entirely below 1.

2

Relative risk [95 % confidence interval] (number of participants).

3

The proportion of studies coming from Sub-Saharan Africa or South Asia is 50% or higher.

4

The quality of evidence is based on GRADE or equivalent assessment for Cochrane reviews and on risk of bias assessment for de novo appraisal of RCTs, detailed in Supplementary Material, Section F: Assessment of quality of evidence