Berglund 1996.

Methods	RCT. Method not described. Two arms Blinding not mentioned Not mentioned if ITT analysis No power calculation Follow‐up 1 year
Participants	N = 45. No withdrawals mentioned Diagnosis by symptoms alone All primary UI. Unclear if mixed UI included Mean age: 50 years (SD6.6); parity: 2.6; 44% menopausal No baseline comparison of groups Incl: not listed Excl: age > 65, previous anti‐incontinence surgery, other gynaecological disease needing surgery, severe medical disease Single centre, university‐based, Dept of Gyne Sweden
Interventions	I: Retropubic urethropexy (30) II: Pubococcygeal repair (15) Description of techniques referenced : Based on these, the reviewers assessed “Retropubic urethropexy” is also the Marshall‐Marchetti‐Krantz. And “Pubococcygeal repair” is also anterior colporrhaphy Both groups had instructions for pelvic floor exercise from physiotherapist Surgeon not specified
Outcomes	Number cured at one year, subjective and objective Time to catheter removal Number with severe post‐op pain Urine loss by 2‐hour pad test Length of stay Number of post‐op complications Number with voiding difficulty Obj Cure = no leak by pad test Subj Cure = no leak by history Catheter removed if residual urine < 100 ml
Notes	Berglund paper (primary reference) includes patients excluded in the Lalos 1993 paper
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	method of randomization not described
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	not mentioned
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	no dropouts/withdrawals reported
Other bias	Unclear risk	no other bias identified