Ankardal 2001.

Methods	RCT. Method not described. Three arms. Blinding not mentioned. No power calculation. Not stated if ITT analysis. Follow up at 1 year
Participants	N = 187. Recruited 211 but only 198 with one year follow up at time of report Groups comparable at baseline Only primary incontinence. Some patients with mixed incontinence Excl: recurrent UI, other major surgery
Interventions	I: Burch (79) II: Lap with mesh and staplers (72) III: Lap with sutures (49) Techniques for open and lap described Participating surgeons with pre‐specified skill level
Outcomes	Number with objective and subjective continence Subjective cure : report as “dry” Objective cure : <8g leakage/24 hours Stress objective cure : <5g leakage / 24 hours Operative time Hospital stay (number of postoperative nights in hospital) QoL using a VAS Complications (Bladder perforation, hematoma, UTI, wound infection, urinary retention >5 days)
Notes	Full text
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	method of randomization not mentioned
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	used opaque dealed envelopes
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	not mentioned
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	not mentioned
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	not mentioned
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	not mentioned
Other bias	Unclear risk	no other source of bias identified