Ankardal 2005

Methods	3‐armed RCT comparing laparoscopic colposuspension using sutures, laparoscopic colposuspension using mesh with open colposuspension using sutures. power calculation, set in Sweden, 4 hospitals. Follow‐up 1 year.
Participants	211 women randomised. All women referred with USI as their main symptom. Patient characteristics similar in each group
Interventions	Group 1 (n = 79): open colposuspension Group 2 (n = 53): laparoscopic colposuspension using sutures Group 3 (n = 79): laparoscopic colposuspension using mesh
Outcomes	Subjective cure and objective cure ( < 8 g/24 h on a 48‐h pad test, and leakage on a frequency/volume chart). VAS used to assess subjective improvement and QoL. Duration of surgery, blood loss, duration of catheter drainage, duration of hospital stay, complications (bladder perforation haematoma leading to re‐operation, UTI within 1 month, wound infection and urinary retention > 5 days)
Notes	Withdrawls before surgery: group 1 (n = 16); group 2 (n = 4); group 3 (n = 4) due to failure to meet all inclusion criteria or regret decision after randomisation
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	A ‐ Adequate