Meyer 2001.

Study characteristics
Methods	Design: 2‐arm (parallel groups) RCT.
Participants	Number of participants: 107 pregnant nulliparous women (unclear if this was number recruited or number analysed). Setting: multiple clinics in single centre, Switzerland. Age: mean (SD), years: 29 (4). Not reported by group. Parity: all nulliparous. Delivery: PFMT 30% instrumental; control 16% instrumental. BMI: mean (SD): not reported. Incontinence at recruitment: PFMT 28%; control 32%. Inclusion: pregnant nulliparous women at 12‐39 weeks' gestation at enrolment. Exclusion: pregnancy complications (twin gestation, diabetes, preterm labour, haemorrhage from low‐lying placenta), women beginning labour, history of UTIs.
Interventions	PFMT (n = 51): as part of a PFM rehabilitation programme, taught by a physiotherapist over 6 weeks (12 sessions). Begun at 2 months and ended before 10 months' postpartum. No details of PFMT programme given, but PFMT in clinic was followed by 20 min of biofeedback and 15 min of electrical stimulation. Control (n = 56): no postpartum PFM rehabilitation programme. Received PFMT education at 10 months' postpartum.
Outcomes	Measured at 10 months' postpartum. Primary endpoint: 10 months' postpartum. Primary outcome: not reported. Outcome measures: self‐reported UI or FI, sexual response, vaginal digital PFM palpation (graded 0‐5), ultrasonography (bladder volume, bladder neck position at rest, on Valsalva, and with voluntary PFM contraction, supine and standing), urodynamics (functional urethral length, maximal urethral closure pressure at stress (cm of water), area of continence at stress, mean value of pressure transmission ratio in central third of functional urethral length), vaginal and anal squeeze pressure.
Notes	No losses to follow‐up. Funding: Swiss National Fund for Scientific Research. Conflicts of interest: not reported.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	"Assigned" in full publication; "randomly assigned" in abstract.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Not feasible.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	Unblinded reporting of UI and FI self‐report outcomes because they were participant‐reported. Not reported if other measures were blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Data available for all 107 participants randomised.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Outcome measures described in methods were reported in results.
Other bias	Low risk	No other sources of bias noted.