Methods	Randomised controlled trial, set in a hospital in Brisbane, Australia
Participants	50 women randomised. Inclusion criteria: obese pregnant women were recruited at 12 weeks’ gestation, aged 18-45, BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, pregnancy care at study hospital, willing and able to be randomised to an exercise intervention Exclusion criteria: non-English speaking, contraindication or inability to exercise, medical or obstetric contraindication to exercise including haemodynamically significant heart disease, restrictive lung disease, incompetent cervix (cerclage), multiple gestation, severe anaemia, chronic bronchitis, type 1 diabetes, orthopaedic limitations, poorly controlled seizure disorder, poorly controlled hyperthyroidism, or a heavy smoker
Interventions	Intervention group: the intervention group received an individualised exercise program with an energy expenditure (EE) goal of 900 kcal/ week. Advice from physiotherapist and diaries for self-monitoring Control group: routine obstetric care.
Outcomes	Self-report of exercise (behaviour change).
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors’ judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation was by a random number allocation technique conducted by a 3rd party
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not clear but external randomisation.
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding.The impact of the lack of blinding was not clear. The use ofself-monitoring diaries by the intervention group may have introduced recall bias
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Randomised 50 women, at 36 weeks 36 were followed up (30% attrition)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Assessment from published study report and on-line supplement
Other bias	Unclear risk	There were no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups in any baseline variable. Different monitoring techniques in the 2 groups (diaries in the intervention group) may have led to recall bias