Mak 2000.

Methods	RCT. Randomisation using computer‐generated random schedule. Used sealed opaque envelopes Blinding not mentioned No power calculation Not mentioned if ITT analysis Follow‐up 1 year
Participants	N = 90 No withdrawals UDS confirmed SUI Mean age: Laparoscopic 51.1 years, open 50.4 years Parity Lap 2.7, open 2.9 Baseline characteristics comparable for age, parity, duration of incontinence, pre‐op pad test, of vaginal deliveries, no. with pre‐existing DI Inclusion: UDS‐confirmed SUI Excl: ISD, previous anti incontinence surgery, MUCP < 20 cm H20, VLPP < 60 Ccm H20, fibrotic vagina.
Interventions	I. Laparoscopic (47) II. Open colposuspension (43) Co‐intervention: All received bladder training once patient was mobile, some had concomitant hysterectomy Procedures described Two senior surgeons performed the procedures
Outcomes	Number cured (objective cure = dry during urodynamics, subjective cure = cure or improvement according to patient's report) using urinary symptom questionnaire, urodynamics, pad test and quality of life Length of stay, time to return to normal activities Complications
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	"randomised according to a computer‐generated random table"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	"sequentially numbered sealed, opaque envelope"
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 withdrawals mentioned
Other bias	Unclear risk	no other bias identified