Hviid 2010

Methods	Single‐centre RCT Computer‐generated randomisation and allocation concealment were appropriate with sealed envelopes opened in operating room Reviews by non‐blinded surgeon No concomitant surgery 80% power to detect 20% difference between the groups with 5% type 1 error: 60 randomised
Participants	Inclusion criteria: symptomatic prolapse point Ba ≥ ‐1 Exclusion criteria: defects posterior or apical compartment, prior pelvic surgery, history of collagen or endocrine disorders Allocated: Gp A 31, Gp B 30 1 year: Gp A 26, Gp B 28
Interventions	A (31): 2.0 interrupted polyglactin (Vicryl) plication B (30): no plication, Pelvicol porcine dermis 4 x 7 cm anchored with 2.0 polyglactin (Vicryl) sutures No concomitant surgery
Outcomes	Assessed at 1 year Reports the following review outcomes: Repeat prolapse surgery Awareness of prolapse (vaginal bulging or lump) Recurrence of prolapse (POPQ Ba ≥ ‐1.0) Repeat surgery for incontinence Objective failure of anterior compartment POPQ assessment of prolapse: pt Ba at 12 months (states median and range) Quality of life: King's Health Questionnaire (graphical results and P values only) Operating time
Notes	Irregularities exist: methods failure defined as e Ba ≥ ‐1 results > ‐1; in table 2 Gp A range Ba 2 to 8, and states in table 3 that 4 had stage 2 prolapse
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	Sealed, non‐transparent, consecutive envelopes
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not stated
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Reviewers not blinded, participant‐completed questionnaires
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	1 year: Gp A 26/31, Gp B 28/30 (88%)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Reports main review outcomes
Other bias	Unclear risk	No COI declared; no statement funding