5. ROBINS‐I assessment by study: Soluyanov 2018.

Study name:Soluyanov 2018
Risk of bias domain	Assessments by outcome	Support for judgment	Conclusion
Bias due to confounding	Urologic symptom scoresa	Quote: "patients were assigned to one of three groups (i.e., planning one of three operations) taking into account the volume of the prostate gland and the presence of concomitant chronic diseases". Judgment: participants were selected based on participant characteristics and post intervention and study author did not use an appropriate analysis method that controlled for confounding.	Critical
Bias in selection of participants into the study		Quote: "patients were assigned to one of three groups (i.e., planning one of three operations) taking into account the volume of the prostate gland and the presence of concomitant chronic diseases". Judgment: participants were selected based on prostate volume related to the results of outcomes.	Critical
Bias in classification of interventions		Judgment: likely prospective comparative trial with predefined criteria for the intervention.	Moderate
Bias due to deviations from intended interventions		Judgment: no information with regard to co‐intervention and analysis used to estimate the effects of starting and adhering to the intervention.	No information
Bias due to missing data		Judgment: all participants were included in the analysis.	Low
Bias in measurement of outcomes		Judgment: given that study outcomes were subjective, outcome measures were likely influenced by knowledge of the intervention received.	Serious
Bias in selection of the reported result		Judgment: study outcomes were not well predefined and described, and the protocol was not found.	No information
Overallb	—	Judgment: critical risk of bias in ≥ 1 domain.	Critical

ROBINS‐I: risk of bias tool to assess non‐randomized studies of interventions.
^aThe review outcome reported in study.