van Leijsen 2013.

Methods	RCT comparing RPR and TOT
Participants	Dutch multicentre diagnostic cohort study with an embedded RCT 587 women with SUI; 123 randomised to surgery Inclusion criteria: women with urodynamically‐proven SUI, or MUI with SUI as predominant symptom following failed conservative treatment Exclusion criteria: prior incontinence surgery; POP > stage 2 POP‐Q; post PVR of >150 ml (by USS or characterisation) MUI: Group A: 18/33; Group B: 61/90
Interventions	Group A: RPR (n = 33) Group B: TOT (n = 90)
Outcomes	Outcome results for TOT and RPR not reported as separate figures; we contacted the authors who supplied separate figures Subjective cure: defined as self‐reported absence of SUI Objective cure: defined as negative stress test (any leakage of urine was a defined as a failure) Subjective cure3 Objective cure De novo urgency incontinence Voiding dysfunction Tape release for POVD Repeat incontinence surgery
Notes	QoL questionnaires: UDI
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "A web‐based application was used for block randomisation and computer‐generated random number list prepared by a database designer"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Patient data were entered into a password‐protected web‐ based database"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "Participants and health professionals were not blinded to the allocated arm and the urodynamic results"
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "Data input of subjective outcome measurements was per‐formed by researchers who were blinded to the treat‐ment allocation"
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No information