Barry 2008.

Methods	RCT of TOT (Monarc) versus TVT Random allocation of participants but method of sequence generation and allocation concealment not described
Participants	140 women diagnosed with USI Participants in both groups had similar background characteristics including age, BMI, parity, HRT use, menopausal status, previous incontinence surgery, prolapse etc Inclusion criteria: participants had either failed conservative management for symptomatic stress incontinence or required prophylactic incontinence surgery during prolapse repair for occult stress incontinence (no preoperative subjective complaint of urinary stress leakage but found to have USI) Exclusion criteria: significant voiding dysfunction (maximum urine flow rate < 10th percentile according to Liverpool nomogram and PVR volume > 50 ml); known allergy to polypropylene; immunosuppressant therapy and a past history of neurological disease; urogenital malignancy; fistula or pelvic radiotherapy
Interventions	Group A: TOT (n = 58) Group B: TVT (n = 82)
Outcomes	Outcomes included Immediate‐ and short‐term complications, cure rates and patient satisfaction Primary outcome: reduction in incidence of bladder injury Secondary outcomes: other intra‐operative complications improvement of symptomatology incontinence impact improvement in incontinence episodes and pad usage objective improvement on UDS: defined as no visible leakage on coughing at the external urethral meatus postoperative complications, such as sling erosion; blood loss: surgeon's subjective estimate of blood volume lost sexual dysfunction via the BFLUTS questionnaire Improvement of a particular symptom denoted at least 50% reduction in frequency of occurrence in 3‐day bladder diary when compared to preoperative state Measures used for assessment included: symptomatology (using standardised, validated BFLUTS) incontinence impact (using standardised, validated short IIQ‐7) 3‐day bladder diary findings and pad usage clinical examination findings (POP‐Q ICS) UDS findings
Notes	23 women from the TVT group and 21 from TOT group were lost to follow‐up. Thus, at follow‐up complete data set available for 82 women in TVT group and 58 in the TOT group. There were no differences between the group unavailable for analysis when compared to those finally analysed No mention of intraoperative cystoscopy in either group
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Participants were blinded and randomly allocated in a balanced way (blocks of 20) Randomisation was stratified according to a history of previous incontinence surgery
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Unclear
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Participants were blinded. How this was achieved was not explained
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No information
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No differential loss to follow‐up or differential attrition