Comparison 5. Total pelvic floor repair (TPFR) versus postanal repair (PAR).

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Number of patients with no change in incontinence	1		Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
2 Number of patients failing to achieve full continence	2	44	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.38 [0.08, 1.83]
3 Number of patients with no improvement in faecal urgency	0	0	Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	0.0 [0.0, 0.0]
4 Number of patients with adverse functional effects	1		Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
5 Maximum resting anal pressure (cm/water)	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
6 Maximum squeeze pressure	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
7 Number of patients with no improvement in anal canal sensation (mA)	1		Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
8 Functional length of anal canal (cm)	1		Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected
9 Number of patients with a decrease in maximum squeeze pressure	1		Peto Odds Ratio (Peto, Fixed, 95% CI)	Totals not selected