Study	Reason for exclusion
Amat 2007	RCT. One minimally invasive sling versus another
Atherton 2000	Non‐randomised
Aurunkalaivanan 2001	We are not sure about the population studied and it could be the same population as Barrington 2003 and Arunkalaivanan 2003 (included in the review); we have written to the trial authors to clarify this point.
Barrington 2003	We are not sure about the population studied and it could be the same population as Aurunkalaivanan 2001 and Arunkalaivanan 2003 (included in the review); we have written to the trial authors to clarify this point.
Bruschini 2005	Not RCT, no comparator group
Choe 2000	Allocation score C (participants randomised by alternating fashion). Trial comparing slings made of vaginal wall and of polytetrafluorethylene mesh impregnated with chorhexidine
Choe 2001	All participants were randomised to undergo preoperative urodynamic evaluation or not. They then had implantation of suburethral mycromesh sling. Therefore the study analyses the impact on effectiveness of sling if the diagnosis of SUI is made with or without urodynamic evaluation
Chong 2003	Participants all had TVT operation, were randomised to division/no division of tape
Corcos 2001	Participants were randomised to surgery or collagen injection but those in the surgery arm were selected to sling by participant's option. Three types of operation could be chosen in the surgery group: Burch, sling or bladder neck suspension. Results were reported in terms of collagen versus surgery
Darai 2007	RCT 1 minimally invasive sling versus another Inlcuded in Minimally Invasive Sling Cochrane Review
Debodinance 1993	Not all participants had stress incontinence (and allocation score C ‐ participants randomised by birth date). Debodinance 2000 is a 10‐year follow‐up of the first published study. The trial is a comparative study between Bologna (a sling made of strips of vaginal wall) and Ingelman‐Sundberg procedure (anterior colporrhaphy with pubococcygeus muscle)
Debodinance 1994	Not clear how participants allocated. Paper in French, need translation
Giri 2004	We are not sure about the population studied and it could be the same population as Giri 2006, which has been excluded as it was a non‐randomised study. We have made attempts to contact the study authors.
Giri 2006	Non‐randomised
Goldberg 2001	Prolapse surgery rather than incontinence surgery
Halaska 2001	Study comparing transvaginal tape with colposuspension; will be included in a separate review on self‐fixing slings
Han 2001	Study comparing transvaginal tape with colposuspension; will be included in a separate review on self‐fixing slings.
Hung 2001	Not clear how participants were allocated, we have written to the study authors
Ishenko 1999	Randomisation and groups unclear ('randomised by age'). Excluded as attempts to contact study authors unsuccessful and insufficient information given in abstract. Interventions: vaginal hysterectomy, modified Pereyra procedure, anterior and posterior repair vs vaginal hysterectomy, sling procedure with Mersilene mesh, anterior and posterior repair
Kocjancic 2008	Study comparing transvaginal tape procedures; will be included in a separate review on self‐fixing slings.
Kuo 2001	Allocation score C (participants randomised by consecutive study entry). Comparison between rectus fascia and polypropylene mesh
Kwon 2002	Not all participants had stress incontinence; all participants were treated for prolapse but one group received concomitant transvaginal sling (processed fascia lata), one group received an alternate surgery for SUI and the last group, didn't have SUI and were submitted only to treatment of prolapse
Lemieux 1991	Interventions were on clamping versus non‐clamping of catheters post‐anti‐incontinence surgery
Liapis 2002	Study comparing transvaginal tape with colposuspension; will be included in a separate review on self‐fixing slings
Lim 2005	This study is comparing minimally invasive sling procedures and will be included in that Cochrane Review.
Meschia 2001	Surgery for prolapse rather than incontinence
Naumann 2006	This study is comparing tape procedures and will be included in the minimally invasive slings Cochrane Review.
O'Sullivan 2000	RCT. Participants randomised to colposuspension or transvaginal tape. Outcome measures (collagen metabolism) reported not included in this review
Obrink 1978	Not clear how participants were allocated. Study author written to in October 2001, no reply received
Schostak 2001	Unclear how participants were allocated. Bone anchoring used
Seo 2007	RCT. One minimally invasive sling versus another
Trezza 2001	Occult incontinence treated at same time as prolapse repair
Wang 1999	Randomised to different types of anaesthetic
Ward 2002a	Study comparing transvaginal tape with colposuspension; will be included in a separate review on self‐fixing slings
Yoo 2007	This study is comparing tape procedures and will be added to the minimally invasive slings Cochrane Review.