Comparison 2. Retropubic bottom‐to‐top approach versus retropubic top‐to‐bottom approach.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Subjective cure (short term, ≤ 1 year)	3	477	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	1.10 [1.01, 1.19]
2 Objective cure (short term, ≤ 1 year)	5	622	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	1.06 [0.97, 1.17]
3 Operative time (minutes)	2	124	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐2.15 [‐4.68, 0.38]
4 Length of hospital stay (days)	2	124	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐0.03 [‐0.37, 0.30]
5 Perioperative complications	4	507	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.98 [0.53, 1.84]
6 Bladder or urethral perforation	5	631	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.55 [0.31, 0.98]
7 Voiding dysfunction	5	631	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.40 [0.18, 0.90]
8 De novo urgency or urgency incontinence	4	541	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.84 [0.52, 1.34]
9 Detrusor overactivity	1		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
10 Vaginal tape erosion	4	563	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.27 [0.08, 0.95]
11 QoL specific	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected