Ref (type)	Population	Outcome, Interventions	Results and statistical analysis	Effect size	Favours
Complications of surgery
Systematic review	681 premenopausal women 4 RCTs in this analysis	Fluid overload 10/327 (3%) with first generation 0/354 (0%) with second generation	OR 0.17 95% CI 0.04 to 0.77 P = 0.22		Not significant
Systematic review	1885 premenopausal women 8 RCTs in this analysis	Perforation 10/771 (1.3%) with first generation 3/1114 (0.2%) with second generation	OR 0.32 95% CI 0.10 to 1.00 P = 0.05		Not significant
Systematic review	1676 premenopausal women 8 RCTs in this analysis	Cervical lacerations 15/671 (2%) with first generation 2/1005 (0.2%) with second generation	OR 0.22 95% CI 0.08 to 0.60 P = 0.0031	Moderate effect size	second generation
Systematic review	1188 premenopausal women 5 RCTs in this analysis	Endometriosis 6/444 (1%) with first-generation endometrial destruction techniques 15/744 (2%) with second-generation endometrial destruction techniques	OR 1.26 95% CI 0.44 to 3.60 P = 0.66		Not significant
Systematic review	1834 premenopausal women 8 RCTs in this analysis	Urinary tract infections 12/702 (1.7%) with first-generation endometrial destruction techniques 19/1132 (1.7%) with second-generation endometrial destruction techniques	OR 0.88 95% CI 0.43 to 1.83 P = 0.88		Not significant
Systematic review	1133 premenopausal women 5 RCTs in this analysis	Haematometra 11/460 (2%) with first-generation endometrial destruction techniques 5/673 (1%) with second-generation endometrial destruction techniques	OR 0.31 95% CI 0.11 to 0.85 P = 0.23		Not significant
Systematic review	239 premenopausal women Data from 1 RCT	Hydrosalphinx 1/114 (0.8%) with first-generation endometrial destruction techniques 0/125 (0%) with second-generation endometrial destruction techniques	OR 0.30 95% CI 0.01 to 7.74 P = 0.46		Not significant
Systematic review	982 premenopausal women 5 RCTs in this analysis	Haemorrhage 12/400 (3%) with first-generation endometrial destruction techniques 7/582 (1%) with second-generation endometrial destruction techniques	OR 0.69 95% CI 0.25 to 1.92 P = 0.48		Not significant
Systematic review	267 premenopausal women Data from 1 RCT	Myometritis 1/123 (0.8%) with first-generation endometrial destruction techniques 0/144 (0%) with second-generation endometrial destruction techniques	OR 0.28 95% CI 1.01 to 7.00 P = 0.44		Not significant
Systematic review	265 premenopausal women Data from 1 RCT	Pelvic inflammatory disease 1/90 (1.1%) with first-generation endometrial destruction techniques 2/175 (1.1%) with second-generation endometrial destruction techniques	OR 1.03 95% CI 0.09 to 11.50 P = 0.98		Not significant
Systematic review	265 premenopausal women Data from 1 RCT	Pelvic abscess 1/90 (1%) with first-generation endometrial destruction techniques 0/175 (0%) with second-generation endometrial destruction techniques	OR 0.17 95% CI 0.01 to 4.22 P = 0.28		Not significant
Systematic review	322 premenopausal women Data from 1 RCT	Cervical stenosis 0/107 (0%) with first-generation endometrial destruction techniques 1/215 (0.4%) with second-generation endometrial destruction techniques	OR 1.50 95% CI 0.06 to 37.22 P = 0.80		Not significant
Systematic review	601 premenopausal women 2 RCTs in this analysis	Uterine cramping 64/193 (33%) with first-generation endometrial destruction techniques 157/408 (38%) with second-generation endometrial destruction techniques	OR 1.75 95% CI 1.08 to 2.83 P = 0.023	Small effect size	first-generation endometrial destruction techniques
Systematic review	683 premenopausal women 3 RCTs in this analysis	Severe pelvic pain 5/238 (2.1%) with first-generation endometrial destruction techniques 9/445 (2.0%) with second-generation endometrial destruction techniques	OR 0.86 95% CI 0.18 to 4.41 P = 0.18		Not significant
Systematic review	269 premenopausal women Data from 1 RCT	External burns 0/85 (0%) with first-generation endometrial destruction techniques 2/184 (1%) with second-generation endometrial destruction techniques	OR 2.34 95% CI 0.11 to 49.32 P = 0.58		Not significant