Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 215

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Physical Activity Interventions in Pregnancy and Risk of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Russo, Lindsey M., Nobles, Carrie, Ertel, Karen A., Chasan-Taber, Lisa, Whitcomb, Brian W.·2015·Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common complication of pregnancy associated with an increased incidence of pregnancy complications, adverse pregnancy outcomes, and maternal and fetal risks of chronic health conditions later in life. Physical activity has been proposed to reduce the risk of GDM and is supported by observational studies, but experimental research assessing its effectiveness is limited and conflicting. We aimed to use meta-analysis to synthesize existing randomized controlled studies of physical activity and GDM. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov for eligible studies. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: The following combination of keywords was used: (pregnant or pregnancy or gestation or gestate or gestational or maternity or maternal or prenatal) AND (exercise or locomotion or activity or training or sports) AND (diabetes or insulin sensitivity or glucose tolerance) AND (random* or trial). Eligibility was restricted to studies that randomized participants to an exercise-only-based intervention (ie, separate from dietary interventions) and presented data regarding GDM risk. Two authors performed the database search, assessment of eligibility, and abstraction of data from included studies, and a third resolved any discrepancies. A total of 469 studies was retrieved, of which 10 met inclusion criteria and could be used for analysis (3,401 participants). TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Fixed-effects models were used to estimate summary relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) and I to assess heterogeneity. There was a 28% reduced risk (95% CI 9-42%) in the intervention group compared with the control group (RR 0.72, P=.005). Heterogeneity was low (I=12%) and nonsignificant (P=.33). CONCLUSION: The results from this meta-analysis suggest that physical activity in pregnancy provides a slight protective effect against the development of GDM. Studies evaluating type, timing, duration, and compliance of physical activity regimens are warranted to best inform obstetric guidelines.

Overview

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 · 10.1097/aog.0000000000000691

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Cited by

See all 215

Metadata

Authors
Russo, L. M., Nobles, C., Ertel, K. A., Chasan-Taber, L., & Whitcomb, B. W.
Venue
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Published
2015-03
Volume
125
Issue
3
Pages
576-582
ISSN
0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2002558986
Cited by
215
References
8
FWCI
25.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Physical Activity Interventions in Pregnancy and Risk of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/aog.0000000000000691
The paper
Russo, L. M., Nobles, C., Ertel, K. A., Chasan-Taber, L., & Whitcomb, B. W. (2015). Physical Activity Interventions in Pregnancy and Risk of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000000691

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.