Feldner 2010

Methods	Single‐centre RCT Randomisation and allocation concealment described Evaluated 1 year after AC as compared to small intestine submucosa graft Blinded reviewers Sample size of 60 women was required to achieve a significance level of 0.05 and a power of 80%. This was based on the assumptions of a 25% difference in cure rates between the groups with a 10% loss to follow‐up rate
Participants	Inclusion criteria: women with point Ba ≥ ‐1 Exclusion criteria: hypertension, prior radiation, pelvic sepsis, diabetes, and chronic illness Concomitant surgery allowed including vaginal hysterectomy if greater than stage 2 uterine prolapse
Interventions	Gp A (27) AC with interrupted 0 polyglactin (Vicryl) sutures GP B (29) non‐cross‐linked xenograft porcine small intestine submucosa 7 x 10 cm with dissection to suprapubic arch fixed with 0 prolene x3 each side
Outcomes	Assessed at 1 year Reports the following review outcomes at 1 year: Repeat prolapse surgery (no events) Recurrent prolapse (at point Ba) Mesh exposure (no events) Dyspareunia (any ‐ no separate data for de novo) POPQ assessment of prolapse: point Ba, C, Bp, total vaginal length Quality of life: PQOL questionnaire end scores Operating time
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer‐generated randomisation list
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Centrally controlled allocation concealment appropriate
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not stated
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Blinded reviewers and participant‐completed validated questionnaires
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	1 year: Gp A 20/27(74%); Gp B 22/29 (76%)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Reports main review outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	No COI and no external funding