Cited by 91Reproductive Health and TechnologiesGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementOvarian function and disorders

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of preconception lifestyle interventions on fertility, obstetric, fetal, anthropometric and metabolic outcomes in men and women

Open access
Lan, L., Harrison, C.L., Misso, M., Hill, B., Teede, H.J., Mol, B.W., Moran, L.J.·2017·Human Reproduction

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: What is the impact of preconception lifestyle interventions on live birth, birth weight and pregnancy rate? SUMMARY ANSWER: Lifestyle interventions showed benefits for weight loss and increased natural pregnancy rate, but not for live birth or birth weight. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Evidence on the practice and content of preconception counseling and interventions is variable and limited. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Systematic review and meta-analysis (MA). Main search terms were those related to preconception lifestyle. Database searched were Ovid MEDLINE(R), EBM Reviews, PsycINFO, EMBASE and CINAHL Plus. No language restriction was placed on the published articles. The final search was performed on 10 January 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants were non-pregnant women of childbearing age intent on conceiving or their male partners. Exclusion criteria include participants with BMI < 18 kg/m2, animal trials, hereditary disorder in one or both partners and trials focusing solely on alcohol or smoking cessation/reduction, micronutrient supplementation, or diabetes control. Anthropometric, fertility, obstetric and fetal outcomes were assessed. Bias and quality assessments were performed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The search returned 1802 articles and eight studies were included for analysis. Populations targeted were primarily overweight or obese subfertile women seeking reproductive assistance, with few community-based studies and none including men. MA showed greater reduction in weight (n = 3, P < 0.00001, mean difference: -3.48 kg, 95% CI: -4.29, -2.67, I2 = 0%) and BMI (n = 2, P < 0.00001, mean difference: -1.40 kg/m2, 95% CI: -1.95, -0.84, I2 = 24%) with intervention. The only significant fertility outcome was an increased natural pregnancy rate (n = 2, P = 0.003, odds ratio: 1.87, CI: 1.24, 2.81, I2 = 0%). No differences were observed for ART adverse events, clinical pregnancy, pregnancy complications, delivery complications, live birth, premature birth, birth weight, neonatal mortality or anxiety. Risk of bias were high for three studies, moderate for three studies and low for two studies, Attrition bias was moderate or high in majority of studies. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Results were limited to subfertile or infertile women who were overweight or obese undergoing ART with no studies in men. The heterogeneous nature of the interventions in terms of duration and regimen means no conclusions could be made regarding the method or components of optimal lifestyle intervention. Attrition bias itself is an important factor that could affect efficacy of interventions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Existing preconception lifestyle interventions primarily targeted overweight and obese subfertile women undergoing ART with a focus on weight loss. It is important to note that natural conception increased with lifestyle intervention. This emphasizes the need for further research exploring optimal components of preconception lifestyle interventions in the broader population and on the optimal nature, intensity and timing of interventions. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No conflict of interest declared. C.L.H. is a National Heart Foundation Postdoctoral Research Fellow. B.H. is funded by an Alfred Deakin Postdoctoral Research Fellowship. H.J.T. and B.W.M. hold NHMRC Practitioner fellowships. L.J.M. is supported by a SACVRDP Fellowship; a program collaboratively funded by the NHF, the South Australian Department of Health and the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015023952.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/dex241

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The review identified one other systematic review on the effects of preconception lifestyle interventions on people with infertility (Lan 2017).

    “We identified one other systematic review on the effects of preconception lifestyle interventions on people with infertility (Lan 2017).”

    From Preconception lifestyle advice for people with infertility (2021) · cites this paper as Lan 2017

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lan, L., Harrison, C. L., Misso, M., Hill, B., Teede, H. J., Mol, B. W., & Moran, L. J.
Affiliations
  • Monash Health (AU)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Deakin University (AU)
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
Corresponding author
Moran, L.J.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2017-07-12
Volume
32
Issue
9
Pages
1925-1940
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2735847101
Cited by
91
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Reproduction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • Own your potential (DEAKIN) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute
  • Deakin University
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gestational Diabetes Research and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian function and disorders
Keywords
preconception counseling, weight loss, body mass index, natural pregnancy rate, live birth, birth weight, subfertility, obesity, assisted reproduction, pregnancy complications, neonatal outcomes, gestational weight gain, gestational diabetes mellitus, gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes screening
MeSH terms
Adult, Australia, Female, Fertility, Humans, Life Style, Male, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Outcome, Health Behavior, Preconception Care, Pregnancy Rate

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review