Weber 2001

Methods	RCT (computer‐generated random number tables. Sealed envelopes concealed assignment) comparing 3 surgical techniques 3 arms, 1 centre Length of follow‐up: A + B + C, 23.3 months
Participants	83 women Inclusion: all women undergoing cystocele repair Exclusion: continence surgery, i.e. colposuspension or sling 114 randomised 5 withdrawals 26 lost to follow‐up (A 2: B 15: C 9), leaving 83 in trial
Interventions	Gp A (33): anterior repair: midline plication without tension 0 PDS Gp B (24): ultra‐lateral: dissection to pubic rami laterally, plication paravaginal with tension 0 PDS interrupted Gp C (26): anterior repair plus mesh: standard plication midline polyglactin (Vicryl) mesh overlay, Vicryl sutures Number and level of surgeons unknown
Outcomes	Assessed at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years Reports the following review outcomes at median follow‐up 23 months (range 4.5 to 44.4 months) Awareness of prolapse (reports symptom severity on visual analogue scale but no comparative data) Recurrent prolapse (grade 2 or more prolapse at pts Aa or Ba or worse than preoperative staging) Death Mesh erosion
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Computer generated
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Adequate
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not stated
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Not stated
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	83/114 randomised women included in analysis (73%)
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Main review outcomes reported, but no comparative data for most outcomes
Other bias	Unclear risk	No statement about funding. Significant disparity between total numbers in Table 7 and actual numbers with prolapse reported