Study	Reason for exclusion
Barbic 2012	Non‐randomised study Details: this retrospective study was conducted to assess the amount of nerves in the removed parametrial tissue. Histological specimens from nerve‐sparing radical hysterectomy (28 cases) were compared with those obtained after classic radical hysterectomy (26 cases).
Bogani 2014	Non‐randomised study Deatils: this retrospective non‐randomised study was conducted to determine the perioperative outcomes and survivals of women with cervical cancer stage Ia2‐IIb undergoing laparoscopic radical hysterectomy. Thirty‐three and 63 women had undergone laparoscopic nerve‐sparing radical hysterectomy and conventional laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, respectively.
Ceccaroni 2010	Review article Detials: this reference is a review article describing the surgical steps for parametrial dissection during laparoscopic nerve‐sparing radical hysterectomy.
Ceccaroni 2012	Non‐randomised study Details: the objective of this multicentre retrospective study was to compare standard radical hysterectomy with nerve‐sparing radical hysterectomy with regards to postoperative pelvic dysfunctions, clinical outcome, survival and quality of life. A total of 56 women were included; 31 underwent standard radical hysterectomy and 25 nerve‐sparing radical hysterectomy.
Charoenkwan 2010	Non‐randomised study Details: the objective of this reference was to describe the surgical techniques of nerve‐sparing type III radical hysterectomy. Perioperative outcomes of 22 women with cervical cancer undergoing nerve‐sparing type III radical hysterectomy were compared to the women who had undergone standard radical hysterectomy performed at the author's institution.
Cibula 2010	Non‐randomised study Details: this prospective non‐randomised study was conducted to assess the morbidity of women with early stage cervical cancer before and 6 months following nerve‐sparing radical hysterectomy compared to that with the morbidity in women following different types of parametrectomy without nerve sparing.
Ditto 2009	Non‐randomised study Details: this is an observational cross‐sectional study conducted to evaluate quality of life and bladder, intestinal, and sexual dysfunctions in 2 groups of women undergoing class II radical hysterectomy and group 2, class III nerve‐sparing radical hysterectomy.
Hockel 2000	Non‐randomised study Details: this is a case‐control study assessing outcomes of women undergoing nerve‐sparing radical hysterectomy (N = 41) compared to 139 women following standard radical hysterectomy.
Kanao 2014	Non‐randomised study Details: this study assessed the correlation between preserved pelvic nerve networks and bladder function after laparoscopic nerve‐sparing radical hysterectomy. All women had undergone laparoscopic nerve‐sparing radical hysterectomy and were further classified into three groups depending on the status of preserved pelvic nerve networks: complete preservation of the pelvic nerve plexus (group A, 27 cases); partial preservation (group B, 13 cases); and complete sacrifice (group C, 13 cases).
Kim 2017	Non‐randomised study Details: this non‐randomised study prospectively assessed 87 consecutive women with IB1‐IIA cervical cancer who underwent nerve‐sparing radical hysterectomy. Information of 81 women who received standard radical hysterectomy were reviewed for historical comparisons. The objectives of this study are to investigate favourable factors of nerve‐sparing radical hysterectomy (NSRH) for preserving the pelvic autonomic nerves and subsequent bladder function and to compare the safety between nerve‐sparing radical hysterectomy and standard radical hysterectomy.
Milani 1991	Wrong comparator Details: this randomised study was conducted to evaluate the impact of two types of hysterectomy (type II hysterectomy versus type III hysterectomy) on the bladder functions among 31 women with Ib to IIa cervical cancer.
Querleu 2002	Non‐randomised study Details: this retrospective study was conducted to determine the outcome of women undergoing laparoscopically‐assisted modified radical hysterectomy, with or without paracervical dissection.
Raspagliesi 2006	Non‐randomised study Details: this is a retrospective study assessing 110 women with histologically diagnosed cervical cancer treated surgically with type II or III radical hysterectomy with or without nerve‐sparing approach.
Raspagliesi 2017	Non‐randomised study Details: this is a retrospective, non‐randomised study conducted to assess the impact of nerve‐sparing approach on outcomes of women undergoing minimally invasive radical hysterectomy for locally advanced stage cervical cancer. All women included had minimally invasive class III radical hysterectomy.
Sakuragi 2015	An editorial article Details: this is an editorial article for the randomised controlled trial published in Journal of Gynecologic Oncology (Efficacy and oncologic safety of nerve‐sparing radical hysterectomy for cervical cancer: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2015; 26(2); 90).
Shi 2016	Non‐randomised study Details: this is a retrospective study which was undertaken to assess perioperative and postoperative outcomes compared between women with biopsy‐proven, early‐stage cervical carcinoma underwent with laparoscopic nerve‐sparing radical hysterectomy (N = 64) versus those treated with standard laparoscopic radical hysterectomy (N = 42).
Skret‐Magierlo 2010	Non‐randomised study Details: the aim of this non‐randomised study was to compare peri‐ and postoperative outcomes of 20 women with cervical cancer operated on using the new nerve‐sparing technique of radical hysterectomy with data gathered from those who underwent traditional radical hysterectomy.
Su 2017	Non‐randomised study Details: the aim of this non‐randomised study was to assess the impact of nerve‐sparing approach on the postoperative rectal function among women with IB to IIA cervical cancer, compared with standard radical hysterectomy.
Todo 2006	Non‐randomised study Details: the objective of this non‐randomised study was to assess the postsurgical bladder function by urodynamic study in 27 women with cervical cancer treated with nerve‐sparing radical hysterectomy. All women were further classified into 2 groups depending on the completion of preservation of the autonomic nerves. Autonomic nerves had been completely preserved at least on one side in 22 women and autonomic nerves could not be successfully preserved in the remaining five women.
Tseng 2012	Non‐randomised study Details: the objective of this prospective non‐randomised study was to determine the lower urinary tract function among women with cervical carcinoma stage Ia2 to Ib1 who underwent either nerve‐sparing radical hysterectomy or standard radical hysterectomy at a tertiary referral hospital in Taiwan.
Yang 2016	Non‐randomised study Details: this non‐randomised study assessed the outcomes of laparoscopic nerve‐sparing radical hysterectomy for bulky stage cervical cancer (lesion 6 cm) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared to those who underwent standard laparoscopic radical hysterectomy.