Assessment of physical fitness during pregnancy:

Full text

Translate

Turn on search term navigation

Correspondence to Dr Lidia Romero-Gallardo; [email protected]

What is already knownWHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

The assessment of physical fitness during pregnancy requires special considerations to preserve fetal and maternal health.
Although physical fitness during pregnancy has been assessed inconsistently across studies, these tests have not been systematically compiled to date.
The validity and reliability of the variety of tests used to assess physical fitness during pregnancy has not been comprehensively reviewed.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

During pregnancy, physical fitness including cardiorespiratory fitness, muscular strength, flexibility and balance have been assessed inconsistently, using a wide variety of protocols.
Most of the tests used to assess physical fitness during pregnancy lack validity and reliability data.
Higher physical fitness might be associated with better maternal and neonatal health, although further research is needed.

HOW THIS STUDY MAY AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE AND POLICY

The extent to which the data derived from current physical fitness tests during pregnancy is valid and reliable is still unclear and, therefore, should be interpreted with caution.
Developing a battery of fitness tests to assess the different fitness components during pregnancy must be set as a priority for relevant institutions.
An expert consensus to develop a battery of physical fitness tests is recommended.

Background

Physical fitness (PF) has been defined as the ability to carry out daily tasks with vigour and alertness, without undue fatigue and with ample energy to enjoy leisure-time pursuits and meet unforeseen emergencies.^{1 2} PF is considered a powerful marker of health that is associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events, cancer and all-cause mortality in all ages.^3–7 In pregnant individuals, some studies have recently highlighted the potential impact of PF on maternal and fetal health.^8–15 Low PF levels are associated with low infant birth weight,⁸ increased risk of gestational diabetes mellitus,^{9 10} poor postpartum recovery¹¹ and worse delivery outcomes.^{12 13} Moreover, the anatomical, biomechanical, physiological and psychological changes during the pregnancy might compromise PF levels.^16–18 Consequently, it is of clinical and public health interest to assess PF during the pregnancy, and to understand which available tests are best to assess PF during this critical period of life.

Two categories of PF components have been defined as follows: (1) health-related components (cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), muscular fitness, muscular endurance and flexibility) and (2) skill-related components (ability, coordination, balance, power, reaction time and speed).^{1 2} These PF components can be assessed subjectively through questionnaires,¹⁵ objectively and accurately through laboratory tests and efficiently, economically and easily through field-based tests. During the pregnancy, a wide variety of fitness tests have been used to assess PF, although a compilation of these tests has not been published to date. Compiling all fitness tests performed in pregnant women would help practitioners to select the most useful test according to their purpose. It is also important to note that, although laboratory tests are generally the gold standard for assessing PF, these tests are not accessible to everyone because they need sophisticated and expensive equipment, and it is not possible to evaluate a relatively large sample in a short period of time. As an alternative, a number of field tests exist that provide an opportunity to assess PF in a more accessible way.² However, there is no consensus on which fitness tests should be used to assess PF in pregnant individuals, and the validity and reliability of many of the tests used to assess PF during the pregnancy are unknown.¹⁹

Since the assessment of PF in pregnancy requires special consideration to preserve fetal and maternal health,^{18 20 21} understanding which fitness tests are valid, reliable, and associated with maternal and neonatal health outcomes, would provide a framework for improving PF assessment during pregnancy and also for improving exercise prescription in this population.

The aims of this systematic review were to: (1) describe which fitness tests have been used to evaluate PF in pregnant individuals; and (2) to evaluate the validity and reliability of the fitness tests, and their relationship with maternal and neonatal health.

Methods

Registration and review guidelines and checklist

This systematic review was prospectively registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018117554; available at http://www.t.ly/fS6a). In addition, the review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines²² and the PRISMA checklist²³ is included as online supplemental material 1, table S1. (1) .

Search strategy

Articles were searched by two independent reviewers from two major databases, MEDLINE (PubMed) and the Web of Science (WOS) from inception to January 2021. For the search strategy undertaken in PubMed Medical Subject Heading, (MeSH) terms were used. All terms were combined using the connector OR for similar criteria the connector ‘AND’ was used to combine population group (ie, pregnant women), to delimit date of publication (‘0001/01/01’(PDat): ‘2021/01/15’(PDat)), to include full text papers, and to include studies performed in humans.

A similar search strategy and term combination was undertaken in the WoS (online supplemental material 2, table S2), although MeSH terms and its appropriate terms connection were not used as they are exclusive for PubMed. The complete search strategy and further details are presented in online supplemental material 2, tables S1 and S2.

Inclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) healthy pregnant individuals (no restriction regarding gestational week); (2) at least one component of PF assessed either through field based or laboratory tests; (3) access to full text; (4) only one original article from the same study/project using the same test were included and (5) text in English or Spanish.

Quality assessment of the articles

To assess quality of the articles included in aim 2, three quality scores were applied. To assess validity and reliability, authors adapted two quality scores ad hoc previously used in two different systematic reviews following the same goal as the present review, however, undertaken in different populations.^{24 25} To assess the association of PF with health-related outcomes the Effective Public Health Practice Project was used.²⁶ All procedures are comprehensively described in online supplemental material 3, tables S3–S5.

Process and data extraction

After checking title and abstract, only the studies meeting all inclusion criteria were introduced in a reference manager software (Mendeley). In the event of disagreement between the two independent reviewers concerning the inclusion/exclusion of an article, a consensus was reached (there was no need of a third person). The snowball strategy was also used. Information including reference, age, sample size and fitness test description are summarised in online supplemental material 5, table S6.

Results

A comprehensive PRISMA flow diagram is presented in figure 1.

Figure 1. Flow chart of the literature search and paper selection process.

Overall results, quality assessment and gestational week

The search identified 2617 studies, of which 149 were included (figure 1). These articles contained 191 fitness tests, using 149 different protocols that were included for Aim 1. A summary of the number of articles that assessed PF during the pregnancy and the protocols used for its assessment is presented in figure 2. This has been organised based on each of the different PF components assessed in those articles. Moreover, a comprehensive diagram of the fitness tests and the different protocols performed to date, organised by PF component, is presented in figure 3.

Figure 2. Number of tests and protocols that assessed the different components of physical fitness during pregnancy.

Figure 3. Diagram of the fitness tests and the different protocols organised by PF component. PF, physical fitness.

Regarding aim 1, 99 tests (including 75 different protocols) were used to assess CRF,^{8 12 13 18 27–108} 28 (including 16 different protocols) to assess muscular fitness,^{8 12 13 61 86 109–122} 14 (including 13 different protocols) to assess flexibility,^{12 13 110 114 123–127} 45 tests (including 40 different protocols) to assess balance,^{110 116 128–167} 2 tests using the same protocol to assess speed^{168 169} and 3 tests using the same protocol were multidimensional.^168–170 No results were found for other PF components such as agility or coordination.

Regarding aim 2, a total of 19 articles (13% of the total number of articles included) assessed at least validity (n=3) and reliability (n=4) of fitness tests. These articles are summarised in table 1. Of the three articles^{74 75 169} that assessed validity, two articles were classified as low quality^{74 169} and one as high quality.⁷⁵ Of the four articles that assessed reliability criteria, three were considered high quality^{74 117 168} and one low quality.¹²¹ The relationship of PF with maternal and neonatal health outcomes (n=16 tests) are summarised in table 2. Of these 16 tests, 11 were classified as very low quality^{13 57 68 95 108 111 126 157 158} and 5 were classified as low quality.^{8 63 115 128 170}

Table 1

Overview of studies that assessed the validity and/or reliability of fitness tests during pregnancy

Reference (authors, year)	Validity	Reliability	Capacity evaluated, short test description and maternal and neonatal health outcomes or statistical results	Quality score
Cardio-respiratory fitness
Yeo et al (2005)⁷⁴	Yes	Yes	Cornell Protocol on treadmill platform. Validity: Bland-Altman plots. The mean difference was 4.4±3.6 mL/kg/min. Data indicated that VO2000 overestimates VO₂ by an average of 4.4 mL/kg/min compared with CPX/D. Pearson correlation coefficient between the average and difference of paired measurements was close but not significant (r=0.48; p>0.01). Reliability: Paired t test (t (45)=3.9, p<0.001). Linear regression: y=0.96 X-1.6; 95% CI for the slope: 0.94 to 1.1; R²=0.91, p<0.001	4–8
Mottola et al (2006)⁷⁵	Yes	No	Modified Balke protocol on treadmill platform. Validity: Pearson Correlation: R²=0.72, R² adjusted=0.71 and SEE=2.7 (The prediction equation was compared with cross validation (n=39; p=0.78).	5
Muscular fitness
Gutke et al (2008)¹²¹	No	Yes	Maximal voluntary isometric hip extension Reliability: Spearman’s r and Intercorrelation coefficient (ICC). Right leg: r=0.82; ICC=0.87. Left leg: r=0.88; ICC=0.85 (both p value no reported).	3
Yenişehir et al (2020)¹¹⁷	No	Yes	Five Times Sit to Stand Test (5TSS) Reliability: Inter-rater reliability of 5TSS was excellent for subjects with and without pregnancy-related pelvic girdle pain (ICC ¼ 0.999, 95% CI ¼ 0.999 to 1.000; ICC ¼ 0.999, 95% CI ¼ 0.999 to 0.999, respectively). Test–retest reliability of 5TSS was also very high for subjects with and without PGP (ICC ¼ 0.986, 95% CI ¼ 0.959 to 0.995: ICC ¼ 0.828, 95% CI ¼ 0.632 to 0.920, respectively).	5–7
Flexibility
Lindgren and Kristiansson (2014)¹²⁶	No	Yes	Ad hoc passive abduction of the left fourth finger. Reliability: Intraindividual coefficient of variance. (1) Between the first and second measurement=0.077; (2) Between the second and third=0.070 and between the third and fourth=0.071.	2
Speed
Evensen et al (2015)¹⁶⁸	No	Yes	Ten metres Timed walk Test Reliability: ICC from a one-way random effects model and reporting the 95% CI. Coefficients for test–retest reliability for 10mTWT: (ICC=0.74; 95% CI=0.42 to 0.90; SEM=0.17 m/s; MDC₉₅=0.47 m/s) Coefficients for intertester reliability 10mTWT: (ICC=0.94; 95% CI=0.82 to 0.98; SEM=0.09 m/s; MDC₉₅=0.25 m/s).	8
Evensen et al (2016)¹⁶⁹	Yes	No	Ten metres Timed walk Test Validity: Spearman correlation coefficient. Between the 10mTWT and ASLR (r=−0.65, p=0.003). Between the 10mTWT and PGQ (r=−0.25 to −0.56).	3
Multidimensional
Evensen et al (2015)¹⁶⁸	No	Yes	Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) Reliability: ICC from a one-way random effects model and reporting the 95% CI. Coefficients for test–retest reliability TUG: (ICC=0.88; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95; SEM=0.42 s; MDC₉₅=1.16 s.) Coefficients for intertester reliability TUG: (ICC=0.95; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.98; SEM=0.36 m/s; MDC₉₅=1.00 m/s).	8
Evensen et al (2016)¹⁶⁹	Yes	No	TUG Validity: Spearman correlation coefficient. Between the TUG and ASLR (r_s=0.73, p=0.001). Between the TUG and ASLR (r_s=0.73, p=0.001). Between the TUG and PGQ (r_s=0.41 to 0.52).	3

ASLR, Active Straight Leg Raised; MDC, minimal detectable change; 10mTWT, Ten-metre Timed Walk Test; PGP, Pelvic girdle pain; SEM, SE of measurement.

Table 2

Summary of studies assessing PF and its relationship with maternal and neonatal health outcomes

Health-related outcome	Related to PF					Assoc (-/+)	Statistics	Quality score (0–5)	Unrelated to PF	Quality score (0–5)
	Biblio no								Biblio no
	CRF	MF	Flexibility	Balance	Multidimensional				Biblio no
Maternal Health
Prepregnancy weight	57					–	r=−0.63, P=0.001	2
Maternal HR at submaximal exercise	108					–	NR, P<0.05	1
Duration of gestation	63					+	r=0.12, P=0.01	3
Duration of gestation									108	1
Physical activity practice	95					+	P=0.01	2
Back pain			126			+	OR=1.09, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.17, P=0.022	2
Anxiety				158		–	r=0.559, P=0.02	2
Fall risk				128		–	P<0.0001	3
Fall risk				157		–	P<0.001	2
Pelvic girdle pain					170	+	P<0.001	4
Birth
Length of labour in nulliparas	57					–	r=−0.65, P=0.05	2
Second stage of labour	108					–	NR	1
Caesarean	13					–	NR, P<0.001	2
Pain during contractions	111					+	r=0.67, P<0.001	2
Fetal and neonatal health
Fetal umbilical artery pH	68					+	NR, P<0.001	2
Fetal umbilical artery pH			13			+	r=0.220, P<0.05	2
Asphyxiated babies	108					–	NR, P<0.05	2
Arterial umbilical cord PO2	13					+	r=0.267, P<0.05	2
Arterial umbilical cord PO2			13			+	r=0.237, P<0.05	2
Arterial umbilical cord PCO2			13			–	R=0.331, P<0.01	2
Neonatal birth weight		8				+	r=0.27, P=0.048	3
		115				+	F (2182)=3.15, P=0.004	4
		13				+	r=0.191, P<0.05	2
									93, 26	2,1
New-born length									93
New-born head circumference									93
Apgar Score									93, 26	2,1

Related to PF refers to those variables where authors found either a positive or negative association of the variable with PF levels. Unrelated to PF refers to those variables where authors could not find any association between the variable and PF.

+, direct association of the variable with PF; -, inverse association of the variable with PF; CRF, cardiorespiratory fitness; HR, heart rate; MF, muscular fitness; NR, not reported; PCO2, pressure of CO2; PF, physical fitness; PO2, pressure of O2.

The gestational week at PF assessment ranged from 8 to 41 across articles. Some articles assessed PF at different time points throughout pregnancy; therefore, we divided pregnancy into two stages. Early pregnancy (ie, from week 0 to week 20 of gestation) and late pregnancy (ie, from week 21 to week 40). Using this approach, 11 articles (7%) were performed in early pregnancy; 57 articles (38%) were performed in late pregnancy; 55 articles (37%) were performed several times (ie, range 2–5 times) throughout pregnancy; 7 (5%) articles specified a range of weeks that included early to late pregnancy; 14 articles (9%) reported only the trimester without specifying gestational week; 4 articles (3%) provided no information and 1 article (1%) assessed PF on the day of labour.

Aim 1: fitness tests used to evaluate PF in pregnant women

Cardiorespiratory fitness

We identified 99 tests assessing CRF, of which 61 (62%) were performed on a cycle ergometer, 25 (25%) on a treadmill, 10 (10%) on a track and 3 (3%) used step protocols (figure 3). Of the 99 tests, a total of 75 corresponded to different protocols. For instance, there were 56 different protocols using a cycle ergometer, distributed as follows: only one article used the Arstila test⁶⁸; one used the Bruce Protocol at 75% HR_max²⁷; one applied the Modified Bruce ramp protocol at anaerobic threshold¹⁰⁴; two employed the Modified Balke protocol at 70% HR_max^{34 41}; one used a YMCA protocol;¹⁰⁶ The remaining of articles (n=55) used ad hoc tests (ie, specifically designed for the purpose of the investigation); 11 of which^{32 37 38 41 45 57 64 79 107} used steady-state tests and 44^{28–31 33 35 36 39–41 43 44 46–56 59–63 65–69 90 100–106 108 171–173} used incremental tests. When analysing the type of test based on intensity, we found that 13 tests were maximal tests,^{31 43 44 47–49 59 60 67 103–105 171} 37 submaximal tests^{29 30 35–40 42 45 46 50–52 54–57 62–66 68 69 79 90 100–102 106 108 172} and 3 used mixed tests^{28 33 41} containing submaximal and maximal stages within the same protocol.

There were 25 treadmill tests that used 14 different protocols, distributed as follows: the Modified Balke protocol was used in 10 articles^{8 31 71 73 75–78 82 96}; the Modified Bruce protocol in 2 articles^{13 97} and the traditional Balke protocol used twice in the same article⁷⁰; the traditional Bruce protocol,⁹⁸ the Cornell protocol,⁷⁴ the SWET protocol and the Ebbelling single-stage protocol¹⁸ were each used in one article. There were seven ad hoc tests of which two were steady-state,^{38 81} and five were incremental tests.^{72 73 80 83 90} According to intensity, three were maximal tests^{73 80 81} and four submaximal tests.^{38 72 83 90}

Of the 10 tests performed on a track, 6 articles used the 6 min walk test protocol,^{84 85 87–89 92} and 4 were ad hoc tests (ie, maximal and 4 were submaximal). With regard to the three step tests, one Canadian Home Fitness test⁹³ was used and two ad hoc incremental submaximal tests were used.^{94 95}

Muscular fitness

A total of 28 tests (ie, 14% of all included articles) that included 16 different protocols assessed muscular fitness, of which 10 performed maximal hand-grip strength tests,^{8 12 13 86 109–115} performed endurance hand-grip tests, 2 for 3 min^{118 120} and 1 for a 2 min period¹¹⁹ (figure 3). In two of the articles conducting an endurance hand-grip test,^{118 119} a hand-grip sphygmomanometer was used instead of dynamometry. On the other hand, one used a hand-held dynamometer fixed to a chair to assess quadriceps strength¹¹⁶ and one used a toe-grip dynamometer.¹¹⁶ Moreover, two ad hoc isometric tests were used to assess maximal voluntary hip extension and back flexors endurance in the same article.¹⁷⁴ Finally, 13 dynamic endurance tests were found, 9 were listed as ad hoc tests^{12 112 122} and another 3 (30 s Chair Stand Test, 5 Times Sit to Stand test, Trendelenburg’s test) were classified as ‘other’ dynamic tests.^{13 112 117}

Flexibility

Our search identified 14 (7%) tests that assessed flexibility using 13 different protocols, including the side bending test,¹²⁵ the sit-and-reach test,¹² the back-scratch test (twice),^{13 110} the motion analysis (ie, including three different tests such as the seated and standing forward flexion, seated and standing side to side flexion and seated axial rotation)¹²³ and an optoelectrical system (ie, performing four different tests).¹²⁷ Goniometry was used in two different articles to measure hamstring flexibility,¹¹⁴ wrist flexion-extension and medial lateral deviation.¹²⁴ Only one article used an ad hoc machine to test passive abduction of the left fourth finger.¹²⁶

Balance

We identified 45 (24%) articles assessing balance of which 19 analysed static balance and 26 used dynamic balance with 40 different protocols. With regard to static balance, 18 were laboratory tests of which 12 assessed balance through stabilometry tests on a force platform,^{129 131 132 138 149 158–160 162–164 167} one on a pressure platform¹⁶³ and another on an Equitest platform.¹⁶⁵ Four articles did not mention the type of platform used.^{117 132 133 175} Regarding protocols, all articles conducted the tests with participants standing with bipedal support. However, standing position varied between articles. Ten articles maintained a standing posture with feet separated,^{116 131 132 147 158 159 162 165–167} one with feet together,¹²⁹ two used mixed protocols,^{128 160} one with medial malleoli separated¹³⁰ and four did not mention the standing posture.^{138 149 163 164} Moreover, three articles used protocols with eyes open^{132 149 162} exclusively, eight articles used mixed protocols with eyes open and closed, one used visual target and visual tasks¹⁶⁴ and six did not specify whether participants kept their eyes closed or opened. Only one article used a field test, the one-legged standing protocol.¹¹⁰ On the other hand, one test was a field-test without a platform.

In relation to the 26 articles measuring dynamic balance, 9 assessed balance using platforms. Each of these articles used a different testing tool such as a balance master platform.¹³³ pressure platform,¹⁶³ force platform,¹³⁵ Equitest platform¹³⁴ and a movable platform, which was used in two articles.^{136 137} Two of these articles were walking protocols,^{135 163} one with translational perturbations,¹⁵⁷ one was standing with one knee flexed and arms across the chest.^{136 137} Another 15 articles used three-dimensional (3-D) camera motion capture systems using 13 different protocols. Twelve of the 15 articles were walking protocols^{139 140 142–144 148 150 152–156 161} and 2 used a stand to sit motion protocol.^{141 151} Moreover, one article used a triaxial accelerometer¹⁴⁶; another article assessed balance through recording (without specification of camera type)¹⁴⁵ and another using instrumented insoles.¹⁷⁶ All three of these articles used walking protocols.

Speed

The only protocol that was used to assess speed during pregnancy was the 10 m timed walk test (10mTWT). However, the same test was identified in two different articles.^{168 169} In the 10mTWT, the participants commenced standing at a chair. When told to start, subjects walked as fast as possible along 14 m marked with white tape placed at 0 m, 2 m, 12 m and 14 m. The time (100th of a second) required to walk between the 2 m and 12 m markers was recorded and converted into speed in metres per second (m/sec).

Agility and coordination

No articles of agility and coordination were identified.

Multidimensional

Our search identified a walking multidimensional test that was used in three studies.^168–170 In the Timed Up and Go Test (TUG), the participant began seated in a chair with their arms on armrests and their toes against a start line. The purpose was to cross the front white line at 3 m away, turn around and walk back to the chair and sit down as fast as possible. The performance is measured in time (100th of a second).

Aim 2: evaluation of the validity and reliability of the fitness tests, and their relationship with maternal and neonatal health

Articles assessing validity and reliability are summarised in table 1. Articles assessing PF and its relationship with maternal and neonatal health outcomes are presented in table 2 and follows a similar format as Sallis et al.¹⁷⁷

Cardiorespiratory fitness

We identified two articles examining validity.^{74 75} Yeo et al⁷⁴ aimed to validate a portable metabolic testing system (VO2000) on healthy sedentary pregnant individuals. The VO2000 consistently overestimated VO₂ measurements, compared with the same manufacturer’s reference system, by 4.4±3.6 SD mL/kg/min although the Pearson correlation was significant (r=0.48; p=0.01). When the VO2000 was used twice, the mean difference was statistically significant (1.0±1.8 mL/kg/min; t(45)=3.9, p<0.001). Mottola et al⁷⁵ provided a prediction equation for VO_2peak in pregnant individuals between 16 and 22 weeks of gestation, using a modified Balke protocol. The results of this equation revealed an adjusted R² of 0.71 and differences between actual and predicted VO2 of 2.7 mL/kg/min. When the authors used this equation to predict VO_2peak in a cross-validation group (n=39), they found a predicted value of 23.38±4.03 mL/kg/min, while the actual value was 23.54±5.9 mL/kg/min (p=0.78).

A total of six articles analysed the association of CRF with maternal and neonatal health outcomes. Pomerance et al⁵⁷ observed that VO_2max was inversely associated with the length of labour in multiparas (r=−0.65; p=0.001) and prepregnancy weight (r=−0.63; p=0.001). However, VO_2max was not correlated with newborn weight, length or head circumference, or with the 1 min Apgar scores (all p>0.05). In the same line, Wong and McKenzie¹⁰⁸ observed that fit mothers showed lower HR at submaximal exercise intensity (p<0.05) and the second stage of labour was shorter (no statistics reported) compared with unfit pregnant mothers. However, there was no difference between fit and unfit in the length of gestation or weight gained (no statistics reported). In the same article, the authors showed neither positive nor negative effects of maternal fitness on newborn weight or Apgar scores.

In addition, Erkkola and Rauramo⁶⁸ found that newborns from fit pregnant individuals had higher pH than fetuses of less physically fit women (p<0.01). In this article, participants with low physical performance were more likely to have asphyxiated neonates than neonates of physically fit women (p<0.05). In the same line, Baena-García et al¹³ observed that maternal CRF at the 16th gestational week was related to higher arterial umbilical cord PO₂ (r=0.267, p<0.05), and those who had caesarean sections had significantly lower CRF compared with those who had vaginal births (p<0.001).

Moreover, Bisson et al⁸ studied the association of CRF in early pregnancy with physical activity before and during early pregnancy. The authors found that a higher VO_{2 peak} in early pregnancy was positively associated with physical activity spent at sports and exercise before and during early pregnancy (p<0.001).

Muscular fitness

Only two muscular fitness tests assessed reliability.^{117 121} Yenişehir et al¹¹⁷ analysed reliability and validity of Five Times Sit-to-Stand. Inter-rater reliability was excellent for subjects with and without pelvic girdle pain (PGP) (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC=0.999, 95% CI 0.999 to 1.000: ICC=0.999, 95% CI 0.999 to 0.999, respectively). Test–retest reliability was also very high for subjects with and without PGP (ICC=0.986, 95% CI 0.959 to 0.995: ICC=0.828, 95% CI 0.632 to 0.920, respectively).

Gutke et al¹²¹ analysed the reliability for an ad hoc test. This test consisted of a maximal voluntary isometric hip extension with a fixed sensor holding a sling around the thigh and pulling for 5 s during 3 reps with 5–10 s of rest (r=0.82 for the right leg and r=0.88 for the left leg; ICC=0.87 for the right leg and 0.85 for the left leg; with p value not reported).

Bisson et al⁸ observed that hand-grip strength was positively associated with infant birth weight (r=0.34, p=0.0068) even after adjustment for confounders (r=0.27, p=0.0480). Żelaźniewicz and Pawłowski et al¹¹⁵ observed that hand-grip strength was associated with offspring birth weight when controlled for the newborn sex and gestational age at delivery (F(2.182)=3.15; p=0.04). Baena-García et al¹³ found greater hand-grip strength weakly associated with greater neonatal birth weight (r=0.191, p<0.05). Wickboldt et al¹¹¹ found that hand-grip strength was moderately correlated with pain scores, where the mean hand-grip strength during contractions had the highest correlation coefficient (r=0.67; p<0.001) compared with peak hand-grip strength (r=0.56; p<0.001) and the area under the curve of hand-grip force (r=0.55; p<0.001).

Flexibility

Lindgren and Kristiansson¹²⁶ designed an ad hoc machine to test passive abduction of the left fourth finger and its relationship with low-back pain during pregnancy and early postpartum. Abduction angle was measured at three different times throughout the pregnancy and once in the postnatal period. Reliability of the abduction angle was analysed by the intraindividual coefficient of variance. The coefficients of variance between the first and second measurement was 0.077, between the second and third 0.070 and between the third and fourth 0.071.

Only two flexibility tests evaluated associations with maternal and neonatal health outcomes. Lindgren and Kristiansson¹²⁶ found that women with greater passive abduction angle of the left fourth finger was associated with the highest back pain incidence (OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.17; p=0.022) and the highest number of previous pregnancies (OR 3.24; 95% CI 1.57 to 6.68; p=0.002). Baena-Garcia et al¹³ found increased flexibility associated with a more alkaline arterial pH (r=0.220, p<0.05), higher arterial PO₂ (r=0.237, p<0.05) and lower arterial PCO₂ (r=−0.331, p<0.01) in the umbilical cord blood.

Balance

No validity or reliability assessments were performed regarding balance tests.

Three articles associated balance with neonatal and maternal health-related outcomes. Öztürk et al¹²⁸ observed that static balance decreased and fall risk increased in pregnant individuals with lower back pain (49.90±24.47 vs 28.47±19.60; p<0.0001). In relation to exercise, McCrory et al¹⁵⁷ showed that exercise may play a role in fall prevention in pregnancy (p=0.005) and they also found that dynamic balance is altered in pregnant individuals who have fallen compared with non-fallers and non-pregnant individuals (p<0.001). Nagai et al¹⁵⁸ studied the relationship between anxiety and balance. They concluded that when anxiety increases during pregnancy, the standing posture is destabilised (r=0.559, p=0.020), which may increase the chance of falling.

Speed

Validity and reliability for 10mTWT was studied by Evensen et al in two different articles.^{168 169} In 2015, Evensen et al¹⁶⁸ analysed the test–retest reliability of 10mTWT showing an ICC of (0.74). Intertester reliability was determined in the first 13 participants with strong correlation (ICC=0.94). In 2016,¹⁶⁹ the same authors analysed the convergent validity of 10mTWT by comparing performances with scores achieved on the Active Straight Leg Raise (ASLR) test and observed moderate positive correlations between 10mTWT and ASLR (r=0.65, p=0.003).

This systematic review did not find any articles that analysed the association of speed with maternal and neonatal health outcomes.

Agility and coordination

No articles were identified.

Multidimensional

Validity and reliability for TUG was analysed by Evensen et al in two different studies.^{168 169} The TUG showed good test–retest reliability (ICC=0.88) and intertester reliability (ICC=0.95). Regarding reliability, strong correlations were found between the TUG and ASLR (r=0.73, p=0.001).

The time on TUG among pregnant individuals with PGP was significantly higher (mean (95% CI) 6.9 (6.5 to 7.3) seconds) than for asymptomatic pregnant (5.8 (5.5 to 6.0), p<0.001) and non-pregnant (5.5 (5.4 to 5.6), p<0.001) individuals.

Discussion

Summary of the evidence

This systematic review revealed that PF has been assessed through a wide variety of tests during pregnancy. However, little is known on the validity and reliability of the tests performed, and the large variety of tests makes it challenging to compare results from different studies. Until a battery of specific fitness tests for pregnant women is developed and validated, the confidence of PF data obtained during pregnancy is limited and should be interpreted with caution. Consequently, the appropriateness of using this PF data to prescribe exercise during pregnancy could be questioned and is a matter that requires special attention. In this context, it is also difficult to evaluate the association of PF with maternal and neonatal health which, in fact, is of wide clinical and public health interest. However, some studies observed associations of PF with maternal and neonatal health outcomes, which needs to be replicated once a PF test battery is released. We strongly suggest that extensive research must be performed to validate such battery of PF tests.

Cardiorespiratory fitness

This systematic review identified that a cycle ergometer has been the equipment most frequently used to assess CRF followed by treadmill and field tests, although step tests have also been conducted. There is a large disparity of protocols and wide variety of ad hoc tests used, which makes comparing results between studies difficult. However, the Modified Balke treadmill Protocol validated by Mottola et al⁷⁵ for pregnant women has been the most frequently used test. There have been more incremental tests used for CRF tests during the pregnancy compared with steady-state tests and more submaximal compared with maximal tests. There is no consensus regarding test termination criteria for submaximal tests, which undoubtedly needs further research. Some articles used relative intensity using physiological variables such as %HR_max or %VO_2max, and others used absolute intensity, such as specific HR (beats per minute). Among the studies that used %HR_max as a test termination criterion, there was a variety of percentages such as 70%,^{34 35 90 100} 75%^{27 29 69 97} or 85%.^{13 54 74} Among the studies that used %VO_2max, there were different percentages such as 40%,³⁸ 50%,^{37 101} 60%^{32 38} or 70%.³⁰ Among the studies that used absolute HR as a test termination criterion, the HR for finalising the tests were set either at 125,⁶¹ 150,^{36 45 62 108} 155,⁹⁴ 160⁶⁵ or 170^{50 53 55 56} beats per minute. Some studies even used the rate of perceived exertion as complementary criteria^{46 50 106} or peak aerobic power.³⁹ These complementary criteria have been recommended and studied in pregnant women by authors like Hesse et al⁹⁸ since the physical and emotional changes during pregnancy limit performance. It must be noted that the same equation was not used to estimate HR_max. Some articles used the traditional 220-age formula^{29 35 54 69 97} while others used the Karvonen⁷⁴ or Tanaka¹⁰⁰ formulas. Some articles did not specify how HR_max was estimated.^{27 34 90} This heterogeneity could be due to the physiological complexity of pregnancy, in terms of cardiac changes and response to exercise and the lack of scientific information in this regard. Moreover, the gestational week could be a determinant for physiological responses since Bijl et al¹⁰⁰ observed a slower haemodynamic recovery and an increased ventilatory response to exercise in early pregnancy compared with non-pregnant women. With regard to maximal tests, different terms have been used for maximal criteria such as volitional fatigue,^{30 33 43 44 47 48 98 103 105} exhaustion,³¹ anaerobic threshold^{73 80 104 171} and point of symptom limitation.^{59 60 102}

This lack of consensus has many drawbacks that should be resolved in view of the need to accurately assess CRF during the pregnancy. We advocate for an expert consensus to be developed in the following years to achieve the goal of appropriate and effective CRF assessment during the pregnancy. In particular, it seems essential to develop a treadmill and a cycle ergometer submaximal test that reveals sufficient validity to confidently estimate VO_2max throughout gestation.

Muscular fitness

Muscular fitness tests included muscular strength, endurance and power.² The studies included in this systematic review show that muscular strength was the most frequently assessed component of muscular fitness, since only six studies^{12 13 112 117 122 178 179} assessed endurance and none of them assessed power in pregnancy. In most studies, muscular strength was evaluated through hand-grip maximal strength using a dynamometer. However, two studies used a hand-grip sphygmomanometer test.^{118 119} Some of the hand-grip tests were performed in a standing position,^{8 109} while others used a sitting position¹¹⁰ or supine position,¹¹³ and others did not reveal the position used for the assessment.^{86 112 114 115} Some tests were completed three times,¹¹² others twice^{8 86 115} and others only once.^{110 113 114} This clearly reveals a large methodological variability that might influence the results and make comparing results between studies difficult. Another limitation is the fact that the main strength outcome was hand-grip strength. While hand-grip strength is a good marker of health,¹⁸⁰ it is unclear whether hand-grip responds to changes following exercise interventions. Therefore, validating other muscular strength tests, including lower limb strength tests, is needed for researchers and practitioners to confidently assess muscular strength during the pregnancy.

There were no validity studies and the reliability was assessed only in one maximal isometric hip extension test.¹²¹ This test has limitations since the pregnant abdomen must be on a bed and, as acknowledged by the authors, it cannot be performed during the third trimester. It must be noted that higher hand-grip strength was associated with higher birth weight.^{8 115} Moreover, increased hand-grip strength was produced during uterine contraction.¹¹¹ The advantage of using hand-grip is that it represents an inexpensive, rapid and easy-to-use assessment with minimal training needed to appropriately administer. However, assessing the performance of pregnant athletes with this test seems clearly insufficient. More quality in tests employed is necessary since the association of muscular strength with maternal and neonatal health outcomes is of clinical importance. Moreover, other studies are needed to understand the extent to which preserving strength throughout pregnancy and post partum relates to clinical outcomes.

Flexibility

Although there were seven studies assessing flexibility, none of them used the same protocol. Once again, this reflects a lack of agreement when assessing the same component of PF. Moreover, Lindgren and Kristiansson¹²⁶ found that higher flexibility showed higher low back pain. Despite the limitation of a finger laxity test, we considered these findings an interesting association that warrants further investigation since passive stretching is one of the most common practical prescriptions for exercise professionals instead of mobility and breathing exercises. On the other hand, the results of Baena-García et al¹³ are very relevant to fetal health since flexibility was associated with a better pH, PO₂ and PCO₂ in umbilical cord blood. Hence, more research about flexibility tests, their outcomes and their prescription are needed.

Balance

We identified that balance was the second PF component most frequently evaluated during pregnancy, following CRF. This makes sense since the centre of gravity changes during pregnancy as a result of expansion of the uterus and the risk of falls increases. However, there is high heterogeneity between the protocols employed in different studies. For static balance, the protocol most frequently used was stabilometry on a force platform with bipedal support and eyes open and eyes closed within the same test. For dynamic balance, there was a greater heterogeneity across protocols both in the platform used and in the movements over the platforms. Regarding the assessment tool, the 3-D camera was the device most frequently used.^{139–142 144 165} Likewise, we observed differences between the number of platform pieces, trials and Hz used. Some protocols were performed on two piece platforms,^{130 131 149} others on one piece platforms^{129 132 138 158 160 166 167} and others did not specify the type of platform.^163–165 Although the number of trials and the frequency of recording (ie, Hz) are important protocol parameters that should be carefully documented, only 5 (out of 13) articles described the number of trials^{131 138 166 167 175} and 1 described frequency of recording.¹⁴⁹ The usefulness of these tests is restricted to the research area and all of them use expensive technological tools; therefore, it is difficult to extrapolate these tests to fitness centres or clinical settings. Falls during pregnancy could be prevented if balance was easily assessed. For this reason, it is necessary to develop an inexpensive and easy-to-use balance field test.

Validity and reliability of PF tests, and association with maternal and neonatal health

Unfortunately, studies that examine validity and reliability of PF tests are scarce. The PF component most frequently studied was CRF. However, we only found two studies that analysed the validity of the CRF tests, and no studies examined the reliability of these tests. On a treadmill platform, Mottola et al,⁷⁵ validated a special equation for modified Balke protocol that has been used by numerous other authors. In contrast, Yeo et al⁷⁴ aimed to validate a portable metabolic testing system (mod. VO2000) but it overestimated VO₂ measurements for pregnant individuals compared with non-pregnant females and males.

Regarding muscular fitness, the hand-grip test was most commonly used; this test was used as the gold standard for muscular fitness during pregnancy. Only Gutke et al¹²¹ studied the reliability of a test for hip extension. However, the p value was not reported, and the position adopted in the test could be uncomfortable for pregnant participants. Finally, the studies evaluating validity and reliability of speed and multidimensional tests of PF have been researched by Evensen et al.^{168 169} They demonstrated that TUG and 10mTWT are reliable and valid tests for use during the pregnancy.

The validity and reliability of balance (without tests), agility and/or coordination tests has not been investigated to date.

We suggest that specific tests to be performed in pregnancy are needed and their validity and reliability must be assessed to understand the extent to which one might rely on such measures when prescribing exercise, or making clinical recommendations.

Regarding the association of PF with maternal and neonatal health outcomes, we conclude that more research is also necessary. Nevertheless, from this review we can highlight some interesting associations with different fitness components. A better CRF was associated with a shorter labour^{57 108} and a lower risk of caesarean section.¹³ However, no association was found regarding other fetal outcomes such as Apgar scores or the newborn anthropometrics.^{57 108} By contrast, muscular strength was associated with optimum infant birth weight.^{8 13 115} Other neonatal outcomes like fetal umbilical cord pH were positively associated with maternal CRF.⁶⁸ On the other hand, better balance scores were associated with lower risk of falls,^{128 158 181} which is of particular interest for exercise professionals, who might include balance as a component of exercise programs for pregnant women. Finally, Evensen et al¹⁶⁹ found that PGP could be a limiting factor to assess PF in pregnant individuals since the time of TUG was significantly higher in those with pain than in asymptomatic pregnant and non-pregnant individuals.

None of the studies reviewed in this article have described adverse events during PF assessment. Moreover, official bodies such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Canadian Society of Exercise Physiology and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada have highlighted the benefits of an adequate PF assessment, and assert the need of consensus in PF assessment during the pregnancy.¹⁸² Consequently, the findings from this study have important research and clinical implications.

Limitations and strengths

A limitation of this article is that, although PubMed and WOS are among the most relevant databases in the medical literature, the possibility that a small number of studies have been overlooked cannot be discarded. Nevertheless, these two databases are the biggest databases in sports medicine and sports sciences and, therefore, include the vast majority of studies.

A strength of this systematic review is the fact that, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first article to comprehensively analyse PF assessments, the validity and reliability of fitness tests, and their relationship with maternal and neonatal health outcomes during the pregnancy. The results from this systematic review provide an overall picture of how PF is being assessed in this population, what type of tests are being performed, their specific characteristics, whether these tests have been tested for validity and/or reliability; and whether PF is associated with maternal and neonatal health outcomes. All this information is of wide and undoubted clinical interest.

Conclusions

The main finding of this systematic review is that PF has been assessed through a wide variety of protocols, mostly lacking validity and reliability data, and that no consensus exists on the most suitable fitness tests to be performed during pregnancy. In addition, the available evidence regarding the association of PF with maternal and neonatal health outcomes is scarce and is a matter of further investigation. Provided the need to assess PF during the pregnancy and the importance not only to understand the physical state of the pregnant individual but also to precisely prescribe exercise in this population, extensive research is needed to design and validate a battery of fitness tests to be used for the safe and effective assessment of PF during pregnancy. We advocate for an expert consensus panel to develop a battery of PF tests to assess the different PF components during pregnancy.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication

Not applicable.

Footnote

Twitter @lidiaromero_owa, @AlbertoSoriano_

ORR and JC-P contributed equally.

Contributors Conceptualisation: LR-G, VAA, JC-P and AS-M. Literature search and data analysis: LR-G and ORR. Methodology: LR-G, ORR, JC-P, MM, VAA and AS-M. Formal analysis and investigation: LR-G, ORR and AS-M. Writing-original draft preparation: LR-G. Writing-review and editing: LR-G, ORR, JC-P, LEM, OO, LM, MM, VAA and AS-M. Resources: VAA, JC-P and AS-M. Supervision: VAA, OO, JC-P and AS-M.

Funding This study has been partially funded by the University of Granada, Plan Propio de Investigación 2016, Excellence actions: Units of Excellence: Unit of Excellence on Exercise and Health (UCEES), and by the Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Conocimiento, Investigación y Universidades and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), ref. SOMM17/6107/UGR. This study is included in the thesis of LRG enrolled in the Doctoral Program in Biomedicine of the University of Granada.

Competing interests Yes.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Author note Please note that this work was posted as a pre-print prior to submission. The pre-print version can be accessed here https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.06.26.21259584.

Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

References

¹ Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, Christenson GM. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Rep 1985; 100: 126–31.

² Riebe D, Ehrman JK, Liguori G, eds. ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. 10th ed. American College of Sports Medicine, 2018.

³ Blair SN, Kohl HW, Barlow CE. Changes in physical fitness and all-cause mortality. A prospective study of healthy and unhealthy men. JAMA 1995; 273: 1093–8.

⁴ Kodama S, Saito K, Tanaka S. Cardiorespiratory fitness as a quantitative predictor of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in healthy men and women. JAMA 2009; 301: 2024–35. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.681

⁵ Gibbons LW, Blair SN, Cooper KH, et al. Association between coronary heart disease risk factors and physical fitness in healthy adult women. Circulation 1983; 67: 977–83. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.67.5.977

⁶ Ortega FB, Cadenas-Sanchez C, Lee D-C, et al. Fitness and fatness as health markers through the lifespan: an overview of current knowledge. Prog Prev Med 2018; 3: e0013. doi:10.1097/pp9.0000000000000013 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32671316

⁷ Ortega FB, Ruiz JR, Castillo MJ, et al. Physical fitness in childhood and adolescence: a powerful marker of health. Int J Obes 2008; 32: 1–11. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0803774 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18043605

⁸ Bisson M, Alméras N, Plaisance J, et al. Maternal fitness at the onset of the second trimester of pregnancy: correlates and relationship with infant birth weight. Pediatr Obes 2013; 8: 464–74. doi:10.1111/j.2047-6310.2012.00129.x

⁹ Gar C, Rottenkolber M, Grallert H, et al. Physical fitness and plasma leptin in women with recent gestational diabetes. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0179128. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0179128 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28609470

¹⁰ Engberg E, Tikkanen HO, Koponen A, et al. Cardiorespiratory fitness and health-related quality of life in women at risk for gestational diabetes. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2018; 28: 1–9. doi:10.1111/sms.12896 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28415143

¹¹ Weissgerber TL, Wolfe LA, Davies GAL. Exercise in the prevention and treatment of maternal–fetal disease : a review of the literature. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2006; 674: 661–74.

¹² Price BB, Amini SB, Kappeler K. Exercise in pregnancy: effect on fitness and obstetric outcomes-a randomized trial. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2012; 44: 2263–9. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e318267ad67 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22843114

¹³ Baena-García L, Coll-Risco I, Ocón-Hernández O, et al. Association of objectively measured physical fitness during pregnancy with maternal and neonatal outcomes. The GESTAFIT project. PLoS One 2020; 15: e0229079. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229079

¹⁴ Marín-Jiménez N, Acosta-Manzano P, Borges-Cosic M, et al. Association of self-reported physical fitness with pain during pregnancy: the GESTAFIT project. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2019; 29: 1022–30. doi:10.1111/sms.13426 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30933387

¹⁵ Romero-Gallardo L, Soriano-Maldonado A, Ocón-Hernández O, et al. International fitness Scale—IFIS: validity and association with health-related quality of life in pregnant women. Scand J Med Sci Sport. 2020; 30: 505–14.

¹⁶ Miller MJ, Kutcher J, Adams KL. Effect of pregnancy on performance of a standardized physical fitness test. Mil Med 2017; 182: e1859–63. doi:10.7205/MILMED-D-17-00093 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29087853

¹⁷ Treuth MS, Butte NF, Puyau M. Pregnancy-Related changes in physical activity, fitness, and strength. Med Sci Sports Exer 2005; 37: 832–7. doi:10.1249/01.MSS.0000161749.38453.02

¹⁸ LeMoyne EL, Curnier D, Ellemberg D. Pregnancy and cognition: deficits in inhibition are unrelated to changes in fitness. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2014; 36: 178–85. doi:10.1080/13803395.2013.875520

¹⁹ Meah VL, Backx K, Davenport MH. International Working group on maternal hemodynamics. functional hemodynamic testing in pregnancy: recommendations of the International Working group on maternal hemodynamics. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018; 51: 331–40.

²⁰ May LE, Allen JJB, Gustafson KM. Fetal and maternal cardiac responses to physical activity and exercise during pregnancy. Early Hum Dev 2016; 94: 49–52. doi:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2016.01.005 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26805461

²¹ Wolfe LA, Weissgerber TL. Clinical physiology of exercise in pregnancy: a literature review. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 2003; 25: 473–83. doi:10.1016/S1701-2163(16)30309-7

²² Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000100. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100

²³ Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19621072

²⁴ Castro-Piñero J, Artero EG, España-Romero V, et al. Criterion-related validity of field-based fitness tests in youth: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med 2010; 44: 934–43. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2009.058321 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364756

²⁵ Artero EG, España-Romero V, Castro-Piñero J, et al. Reliability of field-based fitness tests in youth. Int J Sports Med 2011; 32: 159–69. doi:10.1055/s-0030-1268488 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21165805

²⁶ Armijo-Olivo S, Stiles CR, Hagen NA, et al. Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane collaboration risk of bias tool and the effective public health practice project quality assessment tool: methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract 2012; 18: 12–18. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01516.x

²⁷ Kulpa PJ, White BM, Visscher R. Aerobic exercise in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 156: 1395–403. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(87)90006-8

²⁸ Carpenter MW, Sady SP, Hoegsberg B. Fetal heart rate response to maternal exertion. JAMA 1988; 259: 3006–9. doi:10.1001/jama.1988.03720200028028

²⁹ Moore D, Jarrett J, Bendick P. Exercise-induced changes in uterine artery blood flow, as measured by Doppler ultrasound, in pregnant subjects. Am J Perinatol 1988; 5: 94–7. doi:10.1055/s-2007-999663

³⁰ Sady SP, Carpenter MW, Sady MA, et al. Prediction of VO2max during cycle exercise in pregnant women. J Appl Physiol 1988; 65: 657–61. doi:10.1152/jappl.1988.65.2.657 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3170418

³¹ Artal R, Masaki DI, Khodiguian N, et al. Exercise prescription in pregnancy: weight-bearing versus non-weight-bearing exercise. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 161: 1464–9. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(89)90905-8 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2603900

³² Hume RF, Bowie JD, McCoy C, et al. Fetal umbilical artery Doppler response to graded maternal aerobic exercise and subsequent maternal mean arterial blood pressure: predictive value for pregnancy-induced hypertension. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 163: 826–9. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(90)91077-p http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2206070

³³ Sady MA, Haydon BB, Sady SP, et al. Cardiovascular response to maximal cycle exercise duringpregnancy and at two and seven months postpartum. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162: 1181–5. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(90)90012-V

³⁴ Field SK, Bell SG, Cenaiko DF, et al. Relationship between inspiratory effort and breathlessness in pregnancy. J Appl Physiol 1991; 71: 1897–902. doi:10.1152/jappl.1991.71.5.1897

³⁵ Rafla NM, Beazely JM. The effect of maternal exercise on fetal umbilical artery waveforms. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1991; 40: 119–22. doi:10.1016/0028-2243(91)90102-Q http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2070949

³⁶ Bung P, Huch R, Huch A. Maternal and fetal heart rate patterns: a pregnant athlete during training and laboratory exercise tests; a case report. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1991; 39: 59–62 https://www.ejog.org/article/0028-2243(91)90143-9/pdf

³⁷ Young JC, Treadway JL. The effect of prior exercise on oral glucose tolerance in late gestational women. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1992; 64: 430–3. doi:10.1007/BF00625062

³⁸ Clapp JF, Little KD, Capeless EL. Fetal heart rate response to sustained recreational exercise. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993; 168: 198–206. doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(12)90914-X

³⁹ Lotgering FK, Struijk PC, van Doorn MB, et al. Anaerobic threshold and respiratory compensation in pregnant women. J Appl Physiol 1995; 78: 1772–7 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7649911 doi:10.1152/jappl.1995.78.5.1772 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7649911

⁴⁰ Artal R, Fortunato V, Welton A, et al. A comparison of cardiopulmonary adaptations to exercise in pregnancy at sea level and altitude. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 172: 1170–80. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(95)91475-7 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7726252

⁴¹ Soultanakis HN, Artal R, Wiswell RA. Prolonged exercise in pregnancy: glucose homeostasis, ventilatory and cardiovascular responses. Semin Perinatol 1996; 20: 315–27. doi:10.1016/S0146-0005(96)80024-3

⁴² O'Neill ME. Maternal rectal temperature and fetal heart rate responses to upright cycling in late pregnancy. Br J Sports Med 1996; 30: 32–5. doi:10.1136/bjsm.30.1.32

⁴³ Manders MA, Sonder GJ, Mulder EJ, et al. The effects of maternal exercise on fetal heart rate and movement patterns. Early Hum Dev 1997; 48: 237–47. doi:10.1016/S0378-3782(96)01858-0 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9154415

⁴⁴ Kemp JG, Greer FA, Wolfe LA. Acid-Base regulation after maximal exercise testing in late gestation. J Appl Physiol 1997; 83: 644–51. doi:10.1152/jappl.1997.83.2.644

⁴⁵ Wolfe LA, Preston RJ, Burggraf GW, et al. Effects of pregnancy and chronic exercise on maternal cardiac structure and function. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 1999; 77: 909–17. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10593665

⁴⁶ Brenner IK, Wolfe LA, Monga M, et al. Physical conditioning effects on fetal heart rate responses to graded maternal exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999; 31: 792–9. doi:10.1097/00005768-199906000-00006 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10378905

⁴⁷ MacPhail A, Davies GA, Victory R, et al. Maximal exercise testing in late gestation: fetal responses. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96: 565–70. doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(00)00940-6 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11004360

⁴⁸ Heenan AP, Wolfe LA, Davies GA. Maximal exercise testing in late gestation: maternal responses. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 97: 127–34. doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(00)01089-9 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11152921

⁴⁹ Kennelly MM, Geary M, McCaffrey N, et al. Exercise-related changes in umbilical and uterine artery waveforms as assessed by Doppler ultrasound scans. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187: 661–6. doi:10.1067/mob.2002.125741

⁵⁰ Wolfe LA, Heenan AP, Bonen A. Aerobic conditioning effects on substrate responses during graded cycling in pregnancy. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 2003; 81: 696–703. doi:10.1139/y03-059 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12897817

⁵¹ Lindqvist PG, Marsal K, Merlo J, et al. Thermal response to submaximal exercise before, during and after pregnancy: a longitudinal study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2003; 13: 152–6. doi:10.1080/jmf.13.3.152.156 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12820836

⁵² Lynch A-M, McDonald S, Magann EF, et al. Effectiveness and safety of a structured swimming program in previously sedentary women during pregnancy. J Matern Neonatal Med 2003; 14: 163–9. doi:10.1080/jmf.14.3.163.169

⁵³ Heenan AP, Wolfe LA. Plasma osmolality and the strong ion difference predict respiratory adaptations in pregnant and nonpregnant women. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 2003; 81: 839–47. doi:10.1139/y03-072

⁵⁴ Pirhonen JP, Lindqvist PG, Marsal K. A longitudinal study of maternal oxygen saturation during short-term submaximal exercise. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging 2003; 23: 37–41. doi:10.1046/j.1475-097X.2003.00467.x

⁵⁵ McAuley SE, Jensen D, McGrath MJ, et al. Effects of human pregnancy and aerobic conditioning on alveolar gas exchange during exercise. Can J Physiol Pharmacol 2005; 83: 625–33. doi:10.1139/y05-054 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16091788

⁵⁶ Weissgerber TL, Wolfe LA, Hopkins WG, et al. Serial respiratory adaptations and an alternate hypothesis of respiratory control in human pregnancy. Respir Physiol Neurobiol 2006; 153: 39–53. doi:10.1016/j.resp.2005.09.004 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16311079

⁵⁷ Pomerance JJ, Gluck L, Lynch VA. Physical fitness in pregnancy: its effect on pregnancy outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1974; 119: 867–76. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(74)90001-5 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4841578

⁵⁸ Jensen D, Webb KA, Wolfe LA, et al. Effects of human pregnancy and advancing gestation on respiratory discomfort during exercise. Respir Physiol Neurobiol 2007; 156: 85–93. doi:10.1016/j.resp.2006.08.004 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16996321

⁵⁹ Jensen D, Webb KA, Davies GAL, et al. Mechanical ventilatory constraints during incremental cycle exercise in human pregnancy: implications for respiratory sensation. J Physiol 2008; 586: 4735–50. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2008.158154

⁶⁰ Kardel KR, Johansen B, Voldner N, et al. Association between aerobic fitness in late pregnancy and duration of labor in nulliparous women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009; 88: 948–52. doi:10.1080/00016340903093583 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562561

⁶¹ Thorell E, Svärdsudd K, Andersson K, et al. Moderate impact of full-term pregnancy on estimated peak oxygen uptake, physical activity and perceived health. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2010; 89: 1140–8. doi:10.3109/00016349.2010.487894

⁶² Vega SR, Kleinert J, Sulprizio M, et al. Responses of serum neurotrophic factors to exercise in pregnant and postpartum women. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2011; 36: 220–7. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2010.07.012 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20692101

⁶³ Thorell E, Goldsmith L, Weiss G, et al. Physical fitness, serum relaxin and duration of gestation. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015; 15: 1–7. doi:10.1186/s12884-015-0607-z

⁶⁴ Kim J-H, Roberge RJ, Powell JB. Effect of external airflow resistive load on postural and exercise-associated cardiovascular and pulmonary responses in pregnancy: a case control study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015; 15: 45. doi:10.1186/s12884-015-0474-7

⁶⁵ Nakagaki A, Inami T, Minoura T, et al. Differences in autonomic neural activity during exercise between the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2016; 42: 951–9. doi:10.1111/jog.12990 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27121772

⁶⁶ Jędrzejko M, Nowosielski K, Poręba R, et al. Physical efficiency and activity energy expenditure in term pregnancy females measured during cardiopulmonary exercise tests with a supine cycle ergometer. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016; 29: 3800–5. doi:10.3109/14767058.2016.1147550 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26866763

⁶⁷ Kardel KR. Effects of intense training during and after pregnancy in top-level athletes. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2005; 15: 79–86. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2004.00426.x http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15773861

⁶⁸ Erkkola R, Rauramo L. Correlation of maternal physical fitness during pregnancy with maternal and fetal pH and lactic acid at delivery. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1976; 55: 441–6. doi:10.3109/00016347609158527

⁶⁹ Ong MJ, Guelfi KJ, Hunter T, et al. Supervised home-based exercise may attenuate the decline of glucose tolerance in obese pregnant women. Diabetes Metab 2009; 35: 418–21. doi:10.1016/j.diabet.2009.04.008 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19747869

⁷⁰ Sibley L, Ruhling RO, Cameron-Foster J, et al. Swimming and physical fitness during pregnancy. J Nurse Midwifery 1981; 26: 3–12. doi:10.1016/0091-2182(81)90169-5 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6914388

⁷¹ Lewis RD, Yates CY, Driskell JA. Riboflavin and thiamin status and birth outcome as a function of maternal aerobic exercise. Am J Clin Nutr 1988; 48: 110–6. doi:10.1093/ajcn/48.1.110

⁷² Marquez-Sterling S, Perry AC, Kaplan TEDA, et al. Physical and psychological changes with vigorous exercise in sedentary primigravidae. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32: 58–62. doi:10.1097/00005768-200001000-00010

⁷³ Santos IA, Stein R, Fuchs SC, et al. Aerobic exercise and submaximal functional capacity in overweight pregnant women. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2005; 106: 243–9. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000171113.36624.86

⁷⁴ Yeo S, Ronis DL, Antonakos CL, et al. Need for population specific validation of a portable metabolic testing system: a case of sedentary pregnant women. J Nurs Meas 2005; 13: 207–18. doi:10.1891/jnum.13.3.207 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16605043

⁷⁵ Mottola MF, Davenport MH, Brun CR, et al. VO2peak prediction and exercise prescription for pregnant women. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2006; 38: 1389–95. doi:10.1249/01.mss.0000228940.09411.9c http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16888450

⁷⁶ Davenport MH, Charlesworth S, Vanderspank D, et al. Development and validation of exercise target heart rate zones for overweight and obese pregnant women. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2008; 33: 984–9. doi:10.1139/H08-086 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18923574

⁷⁷ de Oliveria Melo AS, Silva JLP, Tavares JS, et al. Effect of a physical exercise program during pregnancy on Uteroplacental and fetal blood flow and fetal growth. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120: 302–10. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31825de592

⁷⁸ Ruchat S-M, Davenport M, Giroux I, et al. Walking program of low or vigorous intensity during pregnancy confers an aerobic benefit. Int J Sports Med 2012; 33: 661–6. doi:10.1055/s-0032-1304635

⁷⁹ Morton MJ, Paul MS, Campos GR, et al. Exercise dynamics in late gestation: effects of physical training. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 152: 91–7. doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(85)80187-3 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3993718

⁸⁰ Salvesen Kjell Å, Hem E, Sundgot-Borgen J. Fetal wellbeing may be compromised during strenuous exercise among pregnant elite athletes. Br J Sports Med 2012; 46: 279–83. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2010.080259 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21393257

⁸¹ Mottola MF, Inglis S, Brun CR, et al. Physiological and metabolic responses of late pregnant women to 40 min of steady-state exercise followed by an oral glucose tolerance perturbation. J Appl Physiol 2013; 115: 597–604. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00487.2013

⁸² Bisson M, Rhéaume C, Bujold E, et al. Modulation of blood pressure response to exercise by physical activity and relationship with resting blood pressure during pregnancy. J Hypertens 2014; 32: 1450–7. doi:10.1097/HJH.0000000000000185 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24721929

⁸³ Marshall MR, Pivarnik JM. Perceived exertion of physical activity during pregnancy. J Phys Act Heal 2015; 12: 1039–43. doi:10.1123/jpah.2013-0458

⁸⁴ da Silva EG, de Godoy I, de Oliveira Antunes LC, et al. Respiratory parameters and exercise functional capacity in preeclampsia. Hypertens Pregnancy 2010; 29: 301–9. doi:10.3109/10641950902779271

⁸⁵ Ramírez-Vélez R, Aguilar de Plata AC, Escudero MM, et al. Influence of regular aerobic exercise on endothelium-dependent vasodilation and cardiorespiratory fitness in pregnant women. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2011; 37: 1601–8. doi:10.1111/j.1447-0756.2011.01582.x http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21733037

⁸⁶ Hjorth MF, Kloster S, Girma T, et al. Level and intensity of objectively assessed physical activity among pregnant women from urban Ethiopia. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2012; 12: 154. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-12-154 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23244057

⁸⁷ Radzikowska E, Wiatr E, Franczuk M. Lung function in pregnancy in Langerhans cell histiocytosis. Adv Exp Med Biol 2018; 1023: 73–83.

⁸⁸ Oviedo-Caro MA, Bueno-Antequera J, Munguía-Izquierdo D. Explanatory factors and levels of health-related quality of life among healthy pregnant women at midpregnancy: a cross-sectional study of the PregnActive project. J Adv Nurs 2018; 74: 2766–76. doi:10.1111/jan.13787 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29989189

⁸⁹ Dennis AT, Salman M, Paxton E, et al. Resting hemodynamics and response to exercise using the 6-minute walk test in late pregnancy: an international prospective multicentre study. Anesth Analg 2019; 129: 450–7. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000003818 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30300181

⁹⁰ Veille JC, Hohimer AR, Burry K, et al. The effect of exercise on uterine activity in the last eight weeks of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151: 727–30. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(85)90505-8 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3976780

⁹¹ Birnbaumer P, Dietz P, Watson ED, et al. Absolute Accelerometer-Based intensity prescription compared to physiological variables in pregnant and nonpregnant women. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17: 5651. doi:10.3390/ijerph17165651

⁹² Amola M, Pawara S, Kalra S. Effect of inspiratory muscle training and diaphragmatic breathing exercises on dyspnea, pulmonary functions, fatigue and functional capacity in pregnancy during third trimester. J Clin Diagnostic Res 2019; 13: YC1–4.

⁹³ Dibblee L, Graham TE. A longitudinal study of changes in aerobic fitness, body composition, and energy intake in primigravid patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1983; 147: 908–14. doi:10.1016/0002-9378(83)90244-2 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6650627

⁹⁴ Williams A, Reilly T, Campbell I, et al. Investigation of changes in responses to exercise and in mood during pregnancy. Ergonomics 1988; 31: 1539–49. doi:10.1080/00140138808966803

⁹⁵ Melzer K, Schutz Y, Soehnchen N, et al. Effects of recommended levels of physical activity on pregnancy outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 202: 266.e1–266.e6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2009.10.876 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20022583

⁹⁶ Szymanski LM, Satin AJ. Strenuous exercise during pregnancy: is there a limit? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207: 179.e1–179.e6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2012.07.021 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22939718

⁹⁷ Winn H, Hess O, Goldstein I, et al. Fetal responses to maternal exercise: effect on fetal breathing and body movement. Am J Perinatol 1994; 11: 263–6. doi:10.1055/s-2007-994588

⁹⁸ Hesse CM, Tinius RA, Pitts BC, et al. Assessment of endpoint criteria and perceived barriers during maximal cardiorespiratory fitness testing among pregnant women. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2018; 58: 1844–51. doi:10.23736/S0022-4707.17.07750-7

⁹⁹ Santos CMD, Santos WMD, Gallarreta FMP, et al. Effect of maternal exercises on biophysical fetal and maternal parameters: a transversal study. Einstein 2016; 14: 455–60. doi:10.1590/s1679-45082016ao3758 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28076590

¹⁰⁰ Bijl RC, Cornette JMJ, van der Ham K, et al. The physiological effect of early pregnancy on a woman's response to a submaximal cardiopulmonary exercise test. Physiol Rep 2020; 8: e14624. doi:10.14814/phy2.14624 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33190418

¹⁰¹ Jovanovic L, Kessler A, Peterson CM. Human maternal and fetal response to graded exercise. J Appl Physiol 1985; 58: 1719–22. doi:10.1152/jappl.1985.58.5.1719

¹⁰² da Silva Corrêa M, Catai AM, Milan-Mattos JC, et al. Is pelvic floor muscle training able to alter the response of cardiovascular autonomic modulation and provide a possible cardiovascular benefit to pregnant women? Neurourol Urodyn 2020; 39: 2272–83. doi:10.1002/nau.24481 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32786112

¹⁰³ Matenchuk BA, James M, Skow RJ, et al. Longitudinal study of cerebral blood flow regulation during exercise in pregnancy. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2020; 40: 2278–88. doi:10.1177/0271678X19889089

¹⁰⁴ Bilodeau J-F, Bisson M, Larose J, et al. Physical fitness is associated with prostaglandin F2α isomers during pregnancy. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids 2019; 145: 7–14. doi:10.1016/j.plefa.2019.05.001

¹⁰⁵ Purdy GM, James MA, Wakefield PK, et al. Maternal cardioautonomic responses during and following exercise throughout pregnancy. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2019; 44: 263–70. doi:10.1139/apnm-2018-0397 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30138571

¹⁰⁶ Sussman D, Saini BS, Schneiderman JE, et al. Uterine artery and umbilical vein blood flow are unaffected by moderate habitual physical activity during pregnancy. Prenat Diagn 2019; 39: 976–85. doi:10.1002/pd.5517

¹⁰⁷ O'Neill ME, Cooper KA, Hunyor SN, et al. Cardiorespiratory response to walking in trained and sedentary pregnant women. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 1993; 33: 40–3 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8350606 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8350606

¹⁰⁸ Wong S, McKenzie D. Cardiorespiratory fitness during pregnancy and its effect on outcome. Int J Sports Med 1987; 08: 79–83. doi:10.1055/s-2008-1025645

¹⁰⁹ Petrov Fieril K, Glantz A, Fagevik Olsen M. The efficacy of moderate-to-vigorous resistance exercise during pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015; 94: 35–42. doi:10.1111/aogs.12525 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25287282

¹¹⁰ Atay E, Başalan Iz F. Investigation of the effect of changes in muscle strength in gestational age upon fear of falling and quality of life. Turk J Med Sci 2015; 45: 977–83. doi:10.3906/sag-1404-9 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26422877

¹¹¹ Wickboldt N, Savoldelli G, Rehberg-Klug B. Continuous assessment of labour pain using handgrip force. Pain Res Manag 2015; 20: 159–63. doi:10.1155/2015/281976

¹¹² Kalliokoski P, Rodhe N, Bergqvist Y, et al. Long-Term adherence and effects on grip strength and upper leg performance of prescribed supplemental vitamin D in pregnant and recently pregnant women of Somali and Swedish birth with 25-hydroxyvitamin D deficiency: a before-and-after treatment study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2016; 16: 353. doi:10.1186/s12884-016-1117-3

¹¹³ Ngaka TC, Coetzee JF, Dyer RA. The influence of body mass index on sensorimotor block and vasopressor requirement during spinal anesthesia for elective cesarean delivery. Anesth Analg 2016; 123: 1527–34. doi:10.1213/ANE.0000000000001568

¹¹⁴ Rodríguez-Díaz L, Ruiz-Frutos C, Vázquez-Lara JM. Efectividad de un programa de actividad física mediante El método Pilates en El embarazo Y en El proceso del parto. Enfermería Clínica 2017; 27: 271–7.

¹¹⁵ Żelaźniewicz A, Pawłowski B. Maternal hand grip strength in pregnancy, newborn sex and birth weight. Early Hum Dev 2018; 119: 51–5. doi:10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.03.004 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29558661

¹¹⁶ Takeda K, Yoshikata H, Imura M. Do squat exercises with weight shift during pregnancy improve postural control? Int J of Women’s Health and Reproduction Sciences 2019; 7: 10–16. doi:10.15296/ijwhr.2019.02

¹¹⁷ Yenişehir S, Çıtak Karakaya İlkim, Sivaslıoğlu AA, et al. Reliability and validity of five times sit to stand test in pregnancy-related pelvic girdle pain. Musculoskelet Sci Pract 2020; 48: 102157. doi:10.1016/j.msksp.2020.102157

¹¹⁸ Baker PN, Johnson IR. The use of the hand-grip test for predicting pregnancy-induced hypertension. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1994; 56: 169–72. doi:10.1016/0028-2243(94)90165-1

¹¹⁹ Rogers MS, Todinson B. Change in cardiovascular indices with position and isometric exercise throughout pregnancy: assessment by impedance cardiography and oscillometric sphygmomanometry. Hypertens Pregnancy 1998; 17: 191–202. doi:10.3109/10641959809006075

¹²⁰ Feiner B, Weksler R, Ohel G, et al. The influence of maternal exercise on placental blood flow measured by simultaneous Multigate spectral Doppler imaging (SM-SDI). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 15: 498–501. doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00146.x http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11005117

¹²¹ Gutke A, Östgaard HC, Öberg B. Association between muscle function and low back pain in relation to pregnancy. J Rehabil Med 2008; 40: 304–11. doi:10.2340/16501977-0170

¹²² O'Connor PJ, Poudevigne MS, Cress ME, et al. Safety and efficacy of supervised strength training adopted in pregnancy. J Phys Act Health 2011; 8: 309–20 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21487130 doi:10.1123/jpah.8.3.309 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21487130

¹²³ Gilleard W, Crosbie J, Smith R. Effect of pregnancy on trunk range of motion when sitting and standing. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2002; 81: 1011–20. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0412.2002.811104.x

¹²⁴ Marnach ML, Ramin KD, Ramsey PS, et al. Characterization of the relationship between joint laxity and maternal hormones in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101: 331–5. doi:10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02447-x http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12576258

¹²⁵ Garshasbi A, Faghih Zadeh S, et al. The effect of exercise on the intensity of low back pain in pregnant women. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2005; 88: 271–5. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2004.12.001

¹²⁶ Lindgren A, Kristiansson P. Finger joint laxity, number of previous pregnancies and pregnancy induced back pain in a cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2014; 14: 61. doi:10.1186/1471-2393-14-61 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24507564

¹²⁷ Cherni Y, Desseauve D, Decatoire A, et al. Evaluation of ligament laxity during pregnancy. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2019; 48: 351–7. doi:10.1016/j.jogoh.2019.02.009 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30794956

¹²⁸ Öztürk G, Geler Külcü D, Aydoğ E, et al. Effects of lower back pain on postural equilibrium and fall risk during the third trimester of pregnancy. J Matern Neonatal Med 2016; 29: 1358–62. doi:10.3109/14767058.2015.1049148

¹²⁹ Shibayama Y, Kuwata T, Yamaguchi J, et al. Changes in standing body sway of pregnant women after long-term bed rest. J Obstet Gynaecol 2016; 36: 479–82. doi:10.3109/01443615.2015.1086983

¹³⁰ Takeda K, Yoshikata H, Imura M. Changes in posture control of women that fall during pregnancy. International Journal of Women’s Health and Reproduction Sciences 2018; 6: 255–62. doi:10.15296/ijwhr.2018.43

¹³¹ Moreira LS, Elias LA, Gomide AB. A longitudinal assessment of myoelectric activity, postural sway, and low-back pain during pregnancy. Acta Bioeng Biomech 2017; 19: 77–83.

¹³² Opala-Berdzik A, Błaszczyk JW, Świder D, et al. Trunk forward flexion mobility in reference to postural sway in women after delivery: a prospective longitudinal comparison between early pregnancy and 2- and 6-month postpartum follow-ups. Clin Biomech 2018; 56: 70–4. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2018.05.009

¹³³ Davies J, Fernando R, McLeod A, et al. Postural stability following ambulatory regional analgesia for labor. Anesthesiology 2002; 97: 1576–81. doi:10.1097/00000542-200212000-00033 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12459687

¹³⁴ McCrory JL, Chambers AJ, Daftary A, et al. Dynamic postural stability during advancing pregnancy. J Biomech 2010; 43: 2434–9. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.09.058

¹³⁵ Branco M, Santos-Rocha R, Aguiar L, et al. Kinematic analysis of gait in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. J Pregnancy 2013; 2013: 1–9. doi:10.1155/2013/718095 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23431450

¹³⁶ Cakmak B, Inanir A, Nacar MC. The effect of maternity support belts on postural balance in pregnancy. PM&R 2014; 6: 624–8.

¹³⁷ Inanir A, Cakmak B, Hisim Y, et al. Evaluation of postural equilibrium and fall risk during pregnancy. Gait Posture 2014; 39: 1122–5. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.01.013 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24630464

¹³⁸ Butler EE, Colón I, Druzin ML, et al. Postural equilibrium during pregnancy: decreased stability with an increased reliance on visual cues. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195: 1104–8. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2006.06.015

¹³⁹ Wu W, Meijer OG, Lamoth CJC, et al. Gait coordination in pregnancy: transverse pelvic and thoracic rotations and their relative phase. Clin Biomech 2004; 19: 480–8. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2004.02.003 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15182983

¹⁴⁰ Forczek W, Staszkiewicz R. Changes of kinematic gait parameters due to pregnancy. Acta Bioeng Biomech 2012; 14: 113–9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23394129

¹⁴¹ Takeda K. A Kinesiological analysis of the Stand-to-Sit during the third trimester. J Phys Ther Sci 2012; 24: 621–4. doi:10.1589/jpts.24.621

¹⁴² Gottschall JS, Sheehan RC, Downs DS. Pregnant women exaggerate cautious gait patterns during the transition between level and Hill surfaces. J Electromyogr Kinesiol Off J Int Soc Electrophysiol Kinesiol 2013; 23: 1237–42. doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2013.04.011

¹⁴³ McCrory JL, Chambers AJ, Daftary A, et al. The pregnant “waddle”: An evaluation of torso kinematics in pregnancy. J Biomech 2014; 47: 2964–8. doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.07.009

¹⁴⁴ Krkeljas Z. Changes in gait and posture as factors of dynamic stability during walking in pregnancy. Hum Mov Sci 2018; 58: 315–20. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2017.12.011

¹⁴⁵ Błaszczyk JW, Opala-Berdzik A, Plewa M. Adaptive changes in spatiotemporal gait characteristics in women during pregnancy. Gait Posture 2016; 43: 160–4. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.09.016

¹⁴⁶ Sawa R, Doi T, Asai T, et al. Differences in trunk control between early and late pregnancy during gait. Gait Posture 2015; 42: 455–9. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.07.058

¹⁴⁷ Valerio PM, Gonçalves VE, Zordão CC, et al. Influence of type 1 diabetes on the postural control of women in the third gestational trimester. Clin Biomech 2020; 77: 105062. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105062 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32497927

¹⁴⁸ McCrory JL, Chambers AJ, Daftary A, et al. Torso kinematics during gait and trunk anthropometry in pregnant fallers and non-fallers. Gait Posture 2020; 76: 204–9. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.11.012 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31864172

¹⁴⁹ Ribas IS, Guirro ECO. Analysis of plantar pressure and postural balance during different phases of pregnancy. BRAZILIAN J Phys Ther 2007; 11: 391–6.

¹⁵⁰ Rothwell SA, Eckland CB, Campbell N, et al. An analysis of postpartum walking balance and the correlations to anthropometry. Gait Posture 2020; 76: 270–6. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.12.017

¹⁵¹ Catena RD, Bailey JP, Campbell N, et al. Stand-to-sit kinematic changes during pregnancy correspond with reduced sagittal plane hip motion. Clin Biomech 2019; 67: 107–14. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.05.014

¹⁵² Catena RD, Campbell N, Werner AL, et al. Anthropometric changes during pregnancy provide little explanation of dynamic balance changes. J Appl Biomech 2019; 35: 232–9. doi:10.1123/jab.2018-0345 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30860422

¹⁵³ Forczek W, Ivanenko Y, Curyło M, et al. Progressive changes in walking kinematics throughout pregnancy—A follow up study. Gait Posture 2019; 68: 518–24. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.01.004

¹⁵⁴ Forczek W, Masłoń A, Frączek B, et al. Does the first trimester of pregnancy induce alterations in the walking pattern? PLoS One 2019; 14: e0209766. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0209766

¹⁵⁵ Gimunová M, Zvonař M, Sebera M, et al. Special footwear designed for pregnant women and its effect on kinematic gait parameters during pregnancy and postpartum period. PLoS One 2020; 15: e0232901. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0232901 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32396578

¹⁵⁶ Forczek W, Ivanenko Y, Salamaga M, et al. Pelvic movements during walking throughout gestation - the relationship between morphology and kinematic parameters. Clin Biomech 2020; 71: 146–51. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2019.11.001

¹⁵⁷ McCrory JL, Chambers AJ, Daftary A, et al. Dynamic postural stability in pregnant fallers and non-fallers. BJOG 2010; 117: 954–62. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02589.x http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20536431

¹⁵⁸ Nagai M, Isida M, Saitoh J, et al. Characteristics of the control of standing posture during pregnancy. Neurosci Lett 2009; 462: 130–4. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2009.06.091 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19576961

¹⁵⁹ Catena RD, Campbell N, Wolcott WC, et al. Anthropometry, standing posture, and body center of mass changes up to 28 weeks postpartum in Caucasians in the United States. Gait Posture 2019; 70: 196–202. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.03.009

¹⁶⁰ Oliveira LF, Vieira TMM, Macedo AR, et al. Postural sway changes during pregnancy: a descriptive study using stabilometry. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009; 147: 25–8. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.06.027

¹⁶¹ Catena RD, Bailey JP, Campbell N, et al. Correlations between joint kinematics and dynamic balance control during gait in pregnancy. Gait Posture 2020; 80: 106–12. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2020.05.025 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32502792

¹⁶² Fontana Carvalho AP, Dufresne SS, Rogério De Oliveira M, et al. Effects of lumbar stabilization and muscular stretching on pain, disabilities, postural control and muscle activation in pregnant woman with low back pain. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2020; 56: 297–306. doi:10.23736/S1973-9087.20.06086-4 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32072792

¹⁶³ Karadag-Saygi E, Unlu-Ozkan F, Basgul A. Plantar pressure and foot pain in the last trimester of pregnancy. Foot Ankle Int 2010; 31: 153–7. doi:10.3113/FAI.2010.0153

¹⁶⁴ Yu Y, Chung HC, Hemingway L, et al. Standing body sway in women with and without morning sickness in pregnancy. Gait Posture 2013; 37: 103–7. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.06.021 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22824679

¹⁶⁵ Ersal T, McCrory JL, Sienko KH. Theoretical and experimental indicators of falls during pregnancy as assessed by postural perturbations. Gait Posture 2014; 39: 218–23. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.07.011 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23953273

¹⁶⁶ Opala-Berdzik A, Bacik B, Markiewicz A, et al. Comparison of static postural stability in exercising and non-exercising women during the perinatal period. Med Sci Monit 2014; 20: 1865–70. doi:10.12659/MSM.890846 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25293983

¹⁶⁷ Opala-Berdzik A, Błaszczyk JW, Bacik B, et al. Static postural stability in women during and after pregnancy: a prospective longitudinal study. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0124207. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124207 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26053046

¹⁶⁸ Evensen NM, Kvåle A, Braekken IH. Reliability of the timed up and go test and Ten-Metre timed walk test in pregnant women with pelvic girdle pain. Physiother Res Int 2015; 20: 158–65. doi:10.1002/pri.1609 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25491137

¹⁶⁹ Evensen NM, Kvåle A, Brækken IH. Convergent validity of the timed up and go test and Ten-metre timed walk test in pregnant women with pelvic girdle pain. Man Ther 2016; 21: 94–9. doi:10.1016/j.math.2015.06.002 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26235131

¹⁷⁰ Christensen L, Vøllestad NK, Veierød MB, et al. The Timed Up & Go test in pregnant women with pelvic girdle pain compared to asymptomatic pregnant and non-pregnant women. Musculoskelet Sci Pract 2019; 43: 110–6. doi:10.1016/j.msksp.2019.03.006 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31076336

¹⁷¹ Kennelly MM, McCaffrey N, McLoughlin P, et al. Fetal heart rate response to strenuous maternal exercise: not a predictor of fetal distress. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187: 811–6. doi:10.1067/mob.2002.125892 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12237667

¹⁷² Heenan AP, Wolfe LA, Davies GAL, et al. Effects of human pregnancy on fluid regulation responses to short-term exercise. J Appl Physiol 2003; 95: 2321–7. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00984.2002 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12959950

¹⁷³ Jensen D, Webb KA, O'Donnell DE. Chemical and mechanical adaptations of the respiratory system at rest and during exercise in human pregnancy. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab 2007; 32: 1239–50. doi:10.1139/H07-120 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18059602

¹⁷⁴ Gutke A, Östgaard HC, Öberg B. Predicting persistent pregnancy-related low back pain. Spine 2008; 33: E386–93. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31817331a4

¹⁷⁵ Cakmak B, Ribeiro AP, Inanir A. Postural balance and the risk of falling during pregnancy. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016; 29: 1623–5. doi:10.3109/14767058.2015.1057490 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26212584

¹⁷⁶ Martínez-Martí F, Martínez-García MS, Carvajal M Á, et al. Fractal behavior of the trajectories of the foot centers of pressure during pregnancy. Biomed Phys Eng Express 2019; 5: 025007. doi:10.1088/2057-1976/aaf0f3

¹⁷⁷ Sallis JF, Prochaska JJ, Taylor WC. A review of correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 18: 963–75. doi:10.1097/00005768-200005000-00014

¹⁷⁸ Gutke A, Kjellby-Wendt G, Öberg B. The inter-rater reliability of a standardised classification system for pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain. Man Ther 2010; 15: 13–18. doi:10.1016/j.math.2009.05.005

¹⁷⁹ Wade M, Prime H, Hoffmann TJ, et al. Birth weight interacts with a functional variant of the oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) to predict executive functioning in children. Dev Psychopathol 2018; 30: 203–11. doi:10.1017/S0954579417000578 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28511728

¹⁸⁰ García-Hermoso A, Cavero-Redondo I, Ramírez-Vélez R, et al. Muscular strength as a predictor of all-cause mortality in an apparently healthy population: a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from approximately 2 million men and women. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2018; 99: 2100–13. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2018.01.008 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29425700

¹⁸¹ McCrory JL, Chambers AJ, Daftary A, et al. Ground reaction forces during gait in pregnant fallers and non-fallers. Gait Posture 2011; 34: 524–8. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.07.007 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21820902

¹⁸² Birsner ML, Gyamfi-Bannerman C. Physical activity and exercise during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 135: e178–88.

Word count: 12325

Show less

© 2022 Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ . Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.

Abstract

Translate

Objectives

To systematically review studies evaluating one or more components of physical fitness (PF) in pregnant women, to answer two research questions: (1) What tests have been employed to assess PF in pregnant women? and (2) What is the validity and reliability of these tests and their relationship with maternal and neonatal health?

Design

A systematic review.

Data sources

PubMed and Web of Science.

Eligibility criteria

Original English or Spanish full-text articles in a group of healthy pregnant women which at least one component of PF was assessed (field based or laboratory tests).

Results

A total of 149 articles containing a sum of 191 fitness tests were included. Among the 191 fitness tests, 99 (ie, 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 (n=16).

Conclusion

Physical fitness has been assessed through a wide variety of protocols, mostly lacking validity and reliability data, and no consensus exists on the most suitable fitness tests to be performed during pregnancy.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42018117554.

Details

Title

Assessment of physical fitness during pregnancy: validity and reliability of fitness tests, and relationship with maternal and neonatal health – a systematic review

Author

Romero-Gallardo, Lidia¹

; Olga Roldan Reoyo²

; Castro-Piñero, Jose³

; May, Linda E⁴

; Ocón-Hernández, Olga⁵

; Mottola, Michelle F⁶

; Aparicio, Virginia A⁷

; Soriano-Maldonado, Alberto⁸

¹ Department of Physical Education and Sport, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain; Sport and Health University Research Centre, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain
² Applied Sports Technology Exercise and Medicine Research Centre, Swansea University, Swansea, UK; Sport Science Department, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
³ GALENO Research Group, Department of Physical Education, Faculty of Education Sciences, Universidad de Cadiz, Cadiz, Spain; The Biomedical Research and Innovation Institute of Cadiz (INiBICA), Cádiz, España
⁴ Kinesiology, East Carolina University College of Health and Human Performance, Greenville, North Carolina, USA; Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, USA
⁵ Gynaecology and Obstetrics Unit, ‘San Cecilio’ University Hospital, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain; The Biosanitary Research Institute of Granada.ibs, Granada, Spain
⁶ R. Samuel McLaughlin Foundation- Exercise and Pregnancy Lab, School of Kinesiology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
⁷ Sport and Health University Research Centre, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain; Department of Physiology, Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology and Biomedical Research Centre, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain
⁸ Department of Education, Faculty of Education Sciences, University of Almería, Almería, Spain; SPORT Research Group (CTS-1024), CERNEP Research Center, University of Almería, Almería, Spain

First page

e001318

Section

Systematic review

Publication year

2022

Publication date

2022

Publisher

BMJ Publishing Group LTD

e-ISSN

20557647

Source type

Scholarly Journal

Language of publication

English

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2022-001318

ProQuest document ID

2723796595

Assessment of physical fitness during pregnancy: validity and reliability of fitness tests, and relationship with maternal and neonatal health – a systematic review

Jump to:

Full text

Abstract

Details

Suggested sources