Colombo 1996.

Methods	RCT. Computer‐generated random table. No opaque envelope available. Two arms Blinding not mentioned No power calculation Not ITT Follow‐up 3 years
Participants	N = 36. No withdrawals UDS‐confirmed SUI. Only primary UI. No mixed UI Mean age: 47.8/49.2 years; parity 2.1/1.9; menopausal: 22%/39% Baseline comparison of groups similar in age, parity, number of vaginal deliveries, % menopausal, BMI, incontinence score Incl: GSI, grade I urethrocoele, incontinence score of 4 or 8 Excl: MUCP < 20 cm H2O, DI, previous anti‐incontinence surgery Single centre, university‐based, Dept Ob&Gyn Italy
Interventions	I: Burch (18) II: Paravaginal defect repair (18) Both techniques described Culdoplasty done if with deep cul de sac of Douglas in both groups Additional abdominal hysterectomy: Burch = 14, Paravag = 16 Surgeon not mentioned
Outcomes	Number cured (objective and subjective) Number improved (subjective) Length of stay Time to spontaneous void Number with urge symptoms Number with voiding difficulty Number with prolapse UDS parameters Subj Cure = no incontinence by history Obj Cure = no urine loss by stress test Normal void = RU ≤ 50ml Improved = clinical score dropped from 8 to ≤ 4 or from 4 to ≤ 2
Notes	Study discontinued due to ethical issues
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	computer‐generated random table
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	"no opaque envelopes available"
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	study was discontinued due to ethical reasons