Bergman 1989a.

Methods	RCT. Randomisation table (to intervention and surgeon). Three arms Blinding not mentioned No power calculation Not ITT analysis Follow‐up one year
Participants	N = 342 enrolled, 298 analysed. Three technically difficult hysterectomy excluded, 41 lost to follow‐up UDS‐confirmed SUI. Only primary incontinence All had pelvic relaxation Mean age: 57 years (range 31‐80), mean parity: 3 (1‐13), 191 were menopausal (received Premarin), 19 had previous vaginal hysterectomy Treatment groups comparable as to age, parity, menopausal status Incl: primary GSI with prolapse requiring vaginal correction Excl: previous anti‐incontinence surgery, DI, other gynae condition needing surgery Single centre, university‐based hospital, urogynaecology unit. USA
Interventions	I : Burch (101) II: Pereyra needle suspension surgery (98) III: Anterior colporrhaphy (99) All procedures described, standard. Prolapse surgery ± vaginal hysterectomy performed together with anti‐incontinence surgery.
Outcomes	Number cured at 3 months and 12 months UDS parameters (MUCP, functional length, abd pressure transmission) Days on catheter Cure = no history of UI, no UI on evaluation, negative cough profile on UDS Catheter removed when RU < 50 ml with spontaneous void
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"randomization table"
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	Low risk	no withdrawals mentioned
Other bias	Unclear risk	no other bias identified