OUTCOME: Urinary continence at 3 months 
ANALYSIS: sensitivity_rct_only 
STUDIES: 3 
TREATMENTS: Conventional, Retzius, Ultra 

Original data:

                                   treat1  treat2      TE   seTE
Dalela_Detroit_RCT_2015_2016 Conventional Retzius -1.0726 0.7036
Ratanapornsompong_2020       Conventional   Ultra -1.1059 0.4414
Siltari_2021                 Conventional   Ultra -0.2000 0.3195

Number of treatment arms (by study):
                             narms
Dalela_Detroit_RCT_2015_2016     2
Ratanapornsompong_2020           2
Siltari_2021                     2

Results (random effects model):

                                   treat1  treat2     OR           95%-CI
Dalela_Detroit_RCT_2015_2016 Conventional Retzius 0.3421 [0.0622; 1.8825]
Ratanapornsompong_2020       Conventional   Ultra 0.5478 [0.2268; 1.3235]
Siltari_2021                 Conventional   Ultra 0.5478 [0.2268; 1.3235]

Number of studies: k = 3
Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 3
Number of observations: o = 370
Number of treatments: n = 3
Number of designs: d = 2

Random effects model

Treatment estimate (sm = 'OR', comparison: other treatments vs 'Conventional'):
                 OR            95%-CI    z p-value
Conventional      .                 .    .       .
Retzius      2.9231 [0.5312; 16.0846] 1.23  0.2176
Ultra        1.8254 [0.7556;  4.4099] 1.34  0.1812

Quantifying heterogeneity / inconsistency:
tau^2 = 0.2618; tau = 0.5117; I^2 = 63.8% [0.0%; 91.7%]

Tests of heterogeneity (within designs) and inconsistency (between designs):
                   Q d.f. p-value
Total           2.76    1  0.0964
Within designs  2.76    1  0.0964
Between designs 0.00    0      --

Details of network meta-analysis methods:
- Frequentist graph-theoretical approach
- Restricted maximum-likelihood estimator for tau^2
- Calculation of I^2 based on Q

--- P-SCORE RANKING ---
             P-score
Retzius       0.7879
Ultra         0.6124
Conventional  0.0997

--- SUCRA RANKING ---
              SUCRA
Retzius      0.7895
Ultra        0.6113
Conventional 0.0992

- based on 20000 simulations

--- GLOBAL INCONSISTENCY: DESIGN-BY-TREATMENT ---
Q statistics to assess homogeneity / consistency

                   Q df p-value
Total           2.76  1  0.0964
Within designs  2.76  1  0.0964
Between designs 0.00  0      --

Design-specific decomposition of within-designs Q statistic

             Design    Q df p-value
 Conventional:Ultra 2.76  1  0.0964

Q statistic to assess consistency under the assumption of
a full design-by-treatment interaction random effects model

                   Q df p-value tau.within tau2.within
Between designs 0.00  0      --     0.5117      0.2618

--- LOCAL INCONSISTENCY: NODE SPLITTING/SIDE ---
Separate indirect from direct evidence (SIDE) using back-calculation method

Random effects model: 

           comparison k prop    nma direct indir. RoR z p-value
 Retzius:Conventional 1 1.00 2.9231 2.9231      .   . .       .
   Ultra:Conventional 2 1.00 1.8254 1.8254      .   . .       .
        Retzius:Ultra 0    0 1.6014      . 1.6014   . .       .

Legend:
 comparison - Treatment comparison
 k          - Number of studies providing direct evidence
 prop       - Direct evidence proportion
 nma        - Estimated treatment effect (OR) in network meta-analysis
 direct     - Estimated treatment effect (OR) derived from direct evidence
 indir.     - Estimated treatment effect (OR) derived from indirect evidence
 RoR        - Ratio of Ratios (direct versus indirect)
 z          - z-value of test for disagreement (direct versus indirect)
 p-value    - p-value of test for disagreement (direct versus indirect)