Abstract
Background Physical fitness (PF) is a powerful marker of health throughout the lifespan. In pregnant women, higher PF is associated with better maternal and fetal health, better delivery outcomes and earlier postpartum recovery. The assessment of PF during pregnancy requires special considerations to preserve fetal and maternal health; thus, providing a compilation of the most frequently used fitness tests, and assessing their validity, reliability, and association with maternal and neonatal health-related outcomes is of scientific and clinical interest.
Objectives To systematically review studies evaluating one or more components of PF in pregnant women, to answer two research questions: 1) What fitness tests have been previously employed in pregnant women? and 2) What is the validity and reliability of these tests and their relationship with health-related outcomes?
Data Sources PubMed and Web of Science.
Methods Two independent reviewers systematically examined the articles in each database. The information from the included articles was summarized by a single researcher.
Results A total of 149 articles containing a sum of 191 fitness tests were included. Among the 191 fitness tests, 99 (i.e.,52%) assessed cardiorespiratory fitness through 75 different protocols, 28 (15%) assessed muscular fitness through 16 different protocols, 14 (7%) assessed flexibility through 13 different protocols, 45 (24%) assessed balance through 40 different protocols, 2 assessed speed with the same protocol and 3 were multidimensional tests using one protocol. A total of 19 articles with 23 tests (13%) assessed either validity (n=4), reliability (n=6), or the relationship of PF with maternal and neonatal health-related outcomes (n=16).
Conclusion PF during pregnancy has been assessed through a wide variety of protocols, mostly lacking validity and reliability data.
PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42018117554
Key points
Physical Fitness during pregnancy has been assessed through a wide variety of tests (n=191) and different protocols (n=149).
We found that cardiorespiratory fitness has been assessed with 75 different protocols (many of them made ad hoc), muscular fitness with 16 different protocols, flexibility with 13 different protocols, and balance with 40 different protocols.
Most of the protocols lacked validity and reliability data, which limits the confidence on the association of fitness with maternal and neonatal health-related outcomes, which is still scarce.
We advocate for an expert consensus to be developed in the following years to achieve the goal of appropriate and effective PF assessment during pregnancy.
Running Heading Assessing physical fitness during pregnancy: validity, reliability and relationship with maternal and neonatal health-related outcomes.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
PROSPERO (CRD42018117554; available at http://www.t.ly/fS6a)
Clinical Protocols
Funding Statement
This study has been partially funded by the University of Granada, Plan Propio de Investigacion 2016, Excellence actions: Units of Excellence: Unit of Excellence on Exercise and Health (UCEES), and by the Junta de Andalucia, Consejeria de Conocimiento, Investigacion y Universidades and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), ref. SOMM17/6107/UGR. Current research activities of Dr. Alberto Soriano-Maldonado are supported by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (ref. RTI2018-093302-A-I00). This study is of the Doctoral Thesis of Lidia Romero Gallardo, within the Biomedicine Doctoral Program at the University of Granada.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This article is a systematic review.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
This article is a systematic review and their results can be consulted in the electronic supplementary material at the same article
