Colombo 2000.

Methods	RCT. Open list of computer‐generated random nos. Two arms Blinding not mentioned No power calculation Not ITT but possible Follow‐up 8 years to 17 years
Participants	N = 71. Dropouts from loss to follow‐up: 2 = Burch; 1 = anterior colporrhaphy UDS‐confirmed diagnosis. All primary UI. No mixed UI. All had MUCP > 30 cm H20 Mean age: 54.9/55.7 years, parity: 3/3, % menopausal: 66%/67%. Baseline comparison of groups similar Incl: GSI, grade 2 or 3 cystocoele; (+) Qtip test Excl: DI, prev anti‐incontinence or prolapse surgery; pelvic disease requiring laparotomy, high surgical risk Single centre, university‐based, Dept Ob&Gyn Italy
Interventions	I: Burch (35) II: Anterior colporrhaphy (33) Both techniques described Group I had total abdominal hysterectomy ± Moschowitz; Group II had vaginal hysterectomy with Douglas obliteration Surgeon not mentioned
Outcomes	Number cured (subjective and objective) Number with recurrent prolapse of grade 2 or 3 Number with dyspareunia for sexually active Length of hospital stay Number with post‐op DI Vaginal length post‐op Subjective cure = no incontinence by history; Objective cure = negative stress test
Notes	Different anti‐prolapse surgery done in each group Additional information on methods and outcome results provided by author on further communication
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	computer‐generated random number
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	"randomization list was open"
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	equivalent proportion of lost to follow‐up between groups
Other bias	Unclear risk	no other bias identified