Comparison 1. Prosthetic mesh placement for the prevention of parastomal herniation.

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Parastomal hernia	10	771	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.53 [0.43, 0.66]
2 Subgroup analysis parastomal herniation at 12 months	7	592	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.47 [0.29, 0.78]
3 Reoperation rate	9	757	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.90 [0.50, 1.64]
4 Operative time	6	671	Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	‐6.50 [‐18.24, 5.24]
5 Postoperative length of stay	4	500	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.66 [‐2.03, 0.70]
6 Stoma‐related infection	6	472	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.89 [0.32, 2.50]
7 Subgroup analyses secondary outcomes	10		Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	Subtotals only
7.1 Laparopscopic	3	153	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.64 [0.47, 0.87]
7.2 Open	6	517	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.46 [0.34, 0.62]
7.3 Sublay mesh	7	619	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.48 [0.36, 0.64]
7.4 Intraperitoneal mesh	2	101	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.76 [0.55, 1.06]
8 Sensitivity analysis: worst‐case scenario incidence of parastomal hernia	10	835	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.49 [0.30, 0.81]
9 Sensitivity analysis: best‐case scenario incidence of parastomal hernia	10	835	Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)	0.40 [0.26, 0.61]