Sivaslioglu 2008.

Methods	Trial design: multi‐centre RCT (2 sites)
Participants	Number of participants randomised: 90 Number of participants analysed: 85 Mean age: (mean ± SD): mesh group = 57.7 ± 9.4, site‐specific group = 50.1 ± 9.9 Inclusion criteria: primary cystocoele Exclusion criteria: stress urinary incontinence, concomitant rectocoele or enterocoele or recurrent cystocoele Setting: urogynaecology clinics of Ankara Etlik Maternity and Women’s Health Teaching Hospital Timing: January 2006 to January 2007
Interventions	Intervention: self‐styled 4‐armed polypropylene (Parietene, Sofradim, France) mesh, no anterior repair (n = 43) Comparison: site‐specific Polyglactin 910 anterior repair (n = 42) Concomitant surgery not standardised, management of concomitant apical prolapse not specified in either group Follow‐up: mean 12 months (range 8 to 16)
Outcomes	Primary outcome/s: objective failure (≥ stage 2 POPQ) Secondary outcome/s: PQoL score postop (mean ± SD), further prolapse surgery, SUI, dyspareunia de novo, mesh erosion
Notes	Intention‐to‐treat analysis: not stated Sample size calculation: 45 in each arm required Trial registration: not stated Funding: not stated Conflicts of interest: not stated CONSORT statement: yes
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 performed objective assessment of patient‐completed questionnaires.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	90 women randomised and 5 lost to follow‐up balanced between groups
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No further validated or structured reporting of secondary outcome findings apart from PQoL score
Other bias	Low risk	No funding and no COI