METHODS: Intervention studies published in English between 2000 and August 2018 were retrieved from PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science using various keywords.
RESULTS: This article is a review of 36 studies conducted in 13 different countries which included a total of 15,931 participants between 19 and 70 years of age. The effect of 26 genes and 64 SNPs on the reduction of body weight and metabolic risk factors in response to diet, exercise, and lifestyle interventions was reviewed.
CONCLUSION: Gene-lifestyle interaction studies on the same candidate gene in different populations have reported information which is challenging to interpret. Thus, it is difficult to arrive at a particular model for a strategy on weight management at this point in time. Most of the intervention studies focus on the effect of variants of a single candidate gene on weight loss. Further evidence from large-scale studies is necessary to assess the effect of multiple candidate genes to compute a gene score that could be used in a model intervention programme. Our review suggests that a healthy lifestyle with a balanced diet and regular physical activity will benefit individuals who carry the risk alleles of the obesity-related candidate genes. This message should be the mainstay of the recommendations and guidelines published by nutrition societies across the world.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study in which 339 first trimester pregnant women were sampled from 13 maternal and child health clinics located in all four parliament districts of Kuala Lumpur. Self-administered questionnaires which contained the Malay version of the pregnancy physical activity questionnaire (PPAQ) were used. Descriptive analysis was conducted to determine the physical inactivity prevalence followed by simple and multiple logistic regression to identify the determinants of physical inactivity with significant level of 5%.
RESULTS: The prevalence of physical inactivity was 38.3%. The highest activity was seen in the household activity domain, despite only 24.8% of the respondents were housewives/unemployed. There was little to no participation observed in the vigorous intensity category. The determinants of physical inactivity were primigravida (aOR 3.54 95% CI 1.40, 8.97), education level (aOR 3.77 95% CI 1.35, 10.52) and body mass index (aOR 0.88 95% CI 0.80, 0.97) which explained 22.6% variation of physical inactivity in the final adjusted model.
CONCLUSION: The prevalence of physical inactivity among first trimester pregnant mothers in this study was 38.3%, and the highest activity was seen in the household category. Health education on physical activity in pregnancy should be focused on those who are primigravida and have no tertiary education. The educational content should be updated and tailored to current pandemic situation where self-isolation is the new norm, by advocating for home-based, moderate to vigorous intensity physical activities.
CONCLUSION: Exposing preterm infants to either 12 h cyglical lighting or continuously dim environment did not have any significant effect on their weight gain during the neonatal period.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the safety of shorter feeding intervals (two hours or shorter) versus longer feeding intervals (three hours or more) and to compare the effects in terms of days taken to regain birth weight and to achieve full feeding.
SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to run comprehensive searches in CENTRAL (2020, Issue 6) and Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions, and CINAHL on 25 June 2020. We searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs comparing short (e.g. one or two hours) versus long (e.g. three or four hours) feeding intervals in preterm infants of any birth weight, all or most of whom were less than 32 weeks' gestation. Infants could be of any postnatal age at trial entry, but eligible infants should not have received feeds before study entry, with the exception of minimal enteral feeding. We included studies of nasogastric or orogastric bolus feeding, breast milk or formula, in which the feeding interval is the intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Our primary outcomes were days taken to achieve full enteral feeding and days to regain birth weight. Our other outcomes were duration of hospital stay, episodes of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) and growth during hospital stay (weight, length and head circumference).
MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs, involving 417 infants in the review. One study involving 350 infants is awaiting classification. All studies compared two-hourly versus three-hourly feeding interval. The risk of bias of the included studies was generally low, but all studies had high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding of the intervention. Three studies were included in meta-analysis for the number of days taken to achieve full enteral feeding (351 participants). The mean days to achieve full feeds was between eight and 11 days. There was little or no difference in days taken to achieve full enteral feeding between two-hourly and three-hourly feeding, but this finding was of low certainty (mean difference (MD) ‒0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‒1.60 to 0.36). There was low-certainty evidence that the days taken to regain birth weight may be slightly longer in infants receiving two-hourly feeding than in those receiving three-hourly feeding (MD 1.15, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.20; 3 studies, 350 participants). We are uncertain whether shorter feeding intervals have any effect on any of our secondary outcomes including the duration of hospital stay (MD ‒3.36, 95% CI ‒9.18 to 2.46; 2 studies, 207 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and the risk of NEC (typical risk ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.11; 4 studies, 417 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported growth during hospital stay.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The low-certainty evidence we found in this review suggests that there may be no clinically important differences between two- and three-hourly feeding intervals. There is insufficient information about potential feeding complications and in particular NEC. No studies have looked at the effect of other feeding intervals and there is no long-term data on neurodevelopment or growth.