Rechberger 2009.

Methods	RCT of retropubic IVS‐02 vs transobturator IVS‐04, multifilament type 3 tape
Participants	Inclusion criteria: women with SUI with a positive cough provocation test Exclusion criteria: presence of uterine myoma; ovarian cyst; or advanced uterine or vaginal prolapse (POP‐Q scale > grade 1) Mean age (years; SD): Group A: 55.56 (10.19); Group B: 55.75 (11.29) Postmenopausal: Group A: 119/269; Group B: 125/268 VLPP: leak pressure during Valsalva manoeuvre was measured. VLPP was determined at 180 ml of bladder filling. ISD was defined as VLPP of ≤ 60 cm H2O ISD: Group A: 45/269; Group B: 40/268
Interventions	Group A: retropubic (IVS‐02; n = 269) Group B: transobturator (IVS‐04; n = 268)
Outcomes	Subjective cure Subjective improvement Mean operating time Bladder perforation Major vascular injury De novo urgency/UI Voiding dysfunction Vaginal tape erosion
Notes	The follow‐up visits were at 1, 4, 6, 12, and 18 months Cystoscopy only performed in the retropubic group Loss to follow‐up: Group A: 68/269; Group B: 71/268
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: “Simple randomisation was used from pseudorandom numbers generated by a computer to allocate patients into the IVS‐02 group or the IVS‐04 group”
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Investigators Jankiewicz and Futyma were not involved in the surgical procedures, but they were responsible for the randomisation process
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: "the surgeon was aware of the procedure being used”
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote:"Only investigators Jankiewicz and Futyma were involved in the follow‐up process, and they were blinded with regard to the treatment procedure used"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All outcome data accounted for and the equivalent no of women were lost to follow‐up in the 2 groups