Objective To assess whether routinely weighing women at each antenatal visit leads to a difference in gestational weight gain and weight gain within the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendation.Design A randomised controlled trial.Setting Antenatal clinics in a tertiary obstetric hospital in Melbourne, Australia.Population Healthy women were enrolled during their antenatal booking visit if they were between 18 and 45 years of age, were <21 weeks' gestation with a singleton pregnancy.Methods The intervention was weighing at each antenatal clinic appointment followed by counselling by their treating clinician according to IOM gestational weight gain guidelines. The control group had standard antenatal care comprising recording weight at booking and then at 36 weeks. Primary analysis was by intentionto-treat.Outcome The primary outcome was difference in mean weight gain between groups. An important secondary outcome was gestational weight gain within IOM recommendations. Secondary outcomes also included maternal or neonatal morbidity.Results Seven hundred and eighty two women consented to take part and 386 were randomised to the intervention group and 396 to the control group. There was no significant difference in weight gain between the intervention group (0.54 kg/week) compared with the control group (0.53 kg/week) (P = 0.63). A similar proportion of women gained more weight than the IOM recommended range: 75% in the intervention group and 71% in the control group (P = 0.21). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes between the two groups.Conclusion We found no evidence that regular weighing in antenatal clinics changed weight gain or was effective at reducing excessive gestational weight gain.Keywords Adverse pregnancy outcome, gestational weight gain, obesity in pregnancy, weighing.Tweetable abstract Weighing at antenatal visits compared with routine care did not reduce excessive weight gain in pregnancy.

BackgroundConcern that mild iodine deficiency in pregnancy may adversely affect neurodevelopment of offspring has led to recommendations for iodine supplementation in the absence of evidence from randomised controlled trials. The primary objective of the study was to investigate the effect of iodine supplementation during pregnancy on childhood neurodevelopment. Secondary outcomes included pregnancy outcomes, maternal thyroid function and general health.MethodsWomen with a singleton pregnancy of fewer than 20 weeks were randomly assigned to iodine (150 μg/d) or placebo from trial entry to birth. Childhood neurodevelopment was assessed at 18 months by using Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development (Bayley-III). Iodine status and thyroid function were assessed at baseline and at 36 weeks’ gestation. Pregnancy outcomes were collected from medical records.ResultsThe trial was stopped after 59 women were randomly assigned following withdrawal of support by the funding body. There were no differences in childhood neurodevelopmental scores between the iodine treated and placebo groups. The mean cognitive, language and motor scores on the Bayley-III (iodine versus placebo, respectively) were 99.4 ± 12.2 versus 101.7 ± 8.2 (mean difference (MD) −2.3, 95 % confidence interval (CI) −7.8, 3.2; P = 0.42), 97.2 ± 12.2 versus 97.9 ± 11.5 (MD −0.7, 95 % CI −7.0, 5.6; P = 0.83) and 93.9 ± 10.8 versus 92.4 ± 9.7 (MD 1.4, 95 % CI −4.0, 6.9; P = 0.61), respectively. No differences were identified between groups in any secondary outcomes.ConclusionsIodine supplementation in pregnancy did not result in better childhood neurodevelopment in this small trial. Adequately powered randomised controlled trials are needed to provide conclusive evidence regarding the effect of iodine supplementation in pregnancy.Trials registrationThe trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry at http://www.anzctr.org.au. The registration number of this trial is ACTRN12610000411044. The trial was registered on 21 May 2010.

Two groups of pregnant women were questioned regarding their opinions on serum screening for Down's syndrome in the first trimester of pregnancy. One group comprised 83 women attending our antenatal clinic who were questioned at the time of the existing second‐trimester screening test. Seventy‐six per cent of those who participated in the second‐trimester screening programme would have preferred the test to have been in the first trimester, mainly because of the easier termination of pregnancy and/or the earlier reassurance provided. The remaining 24 per cent could see no advantage in the earlier time frame. Of the 49 women who had declined second‐trimester screening, only two would have participated in screening had it been in the first trimester. The other group comprised those women attending our antenatal diagnosis clinic who were considering chorionic villus sampling (CVS). Forty‐four per cent of these women would have allowed serum screening in the first trimester to influence their decision as to whether to undergo definitive prenatal diagnostic testing. In general, those women who made use of second‐trimester serum screening would also do so in the first trimester. Those who declined the existing screening programme would also decline first‐trimester screening. Many women currently deciding to undergo CVS would allow a first‐trimester screening test to influence their decision. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.