Sivaslioglu 2008

Methods	Single‐centre RCT comparing polypropylene mesh surgery with site‐specific surgery in the treatment of cystocele CONSORT statement: yes Power calculation: 45 in each arm Type of randomisation: computer generated Blinding strategy: no (assessment was performed by non‐blinded reviewers) Allocation concealment: not specified Definition of cure/failure: "Acceptable cure" defined as cystocele less than ‐1 cm (stage 1 POPQ) Follow‐up: mean 12 months (range 8 to 16) Prolapse assessment: POPQ
Participants	Inclusion: primary cystocele Exclusion: SUI, concomitant rectocele or enterocele or recurrent cystocele Randomised: 90 (45 to each arm) Analysed: 85 Lost to follow‐up: 5
Interventions	A (42): site‐specific polyglactin 910 anterior repair B (43): self styled 4‐armed polypropylene (Parietene, Sofradim, France) mesh, no anterior repair Concomitant surgery not standardised, management of concomitant apical prolapse was not specified in either group
Outcomes	Assessed at 6 weeks, 6 months, and annually Reports the following review outcomes at mean follow‐up of 1 year (range 8 to 16 months): Recurrent prolapse (stage 2 or more POPQ) Mesh erosion Surgery for mesh erosion POPQ assessment of pts Ba, C, Bp, total vaginal length (P values only) Bladder function: de novo SUI Sexual function: de novo dyspareunia Quality of life: PQOL end‐score
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer generated
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not stated
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not stated
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Non‐blinded reviewers; objective assessment was participant‐completed questionnaires
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Flow diagram: 1 year Gp A 42/45, Gp B 43/45
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Reports main review outcomes
Other bias	Low risk	No funding and no COI