OUTCOME: Urinary continence at 12 months ANALYSIS: primary_all_designs STUDIES: 14 TREATMENTS: Conventional, Retzius, Ultra Original data: treat1 treat2 TE seTE Beyatli_2025 Retzius Ultra 0.2534 0.5608 Chang_2018 Conventional Retzius -1.6773 1.5709 Golubtsova_2021 Conventional Retzius -0.1542 1.4413 Kwon_2014 Conventional Ultra -1.0596 0.6999 Lambert_2023 Conventional Retzius -3.4424 1.0320 Lin_2025 Conventional Ultra -0.4796 1.6773 Maruyama_2020 Conventional Retzius -0.7607 0.3999 Nagoya_RS_anatomy_OAB Conventional Retzius -1.5198 1.1573 Nanchang_Deng_2021a Conventional Retzius -2.5998 1.4502 Pirzada_2025 Conventional Retzius -0.2871 0.2599 Puliatti_2019 Conventional Ultra -0.6736 0.4702 Qian_2024 Conventional Retzius -0.1111 0.2723 Sayyid_2017 Conventional Retzius -2.7223 0.6242 Tahra_2021 Conventional Retzius -0.4113 0.7956 Number of treatment arms (by study): narms Beyatli_2025 2 Chang_2018 2 Golubtsova_2021 2 Kwon_2014 2 Lambert_2023 2 Lin_2025 2 Maruyama_2020 2 Nagoya_RS_anatomy_OAB 2 Nanchang_Deng_2021a 2 Pirzada_2025 2 Puliatti_2019 2 Qian_2024 2 Sayyid_2017 2 Tahra_2021 2 Results (random effects model): treat1 treat2 OR 95%-CI Beyatli_2025 Retzius Ultra 1.3178 [0.4320; 4.0203] Chang_2018 Conventional Retzius 0.3388 [0.1789; 0.6415] Golubtsova_2021 Conventional Retzius 0.3388 [0.1789; 0.6415] Kwon_2014 Conventional Ultra 0.4465 [0.1572; 1.2683] Lambert_2023 Conventional Retzius 0.3388 [0.1789; 0.6415] Lin_2025 Conventional Ultra 0.4465 [0.1572; 1.2683] Maruyama_2020 Conventional Retzius 0.3388 [0.1789; 0.6415] Nagoya_RS_anatomy_OAB Conventional Retzius 0.3388 [0.1789; 0.6415] Nanchang_Deng_2021a Conventional Retzius 0.3388 [0.1789; 0.6415] Pirzada_2025 Conventional Retzius 0.3388 [0.1789; 0.6415] Puliatti_2019 Conventional Ultra 0.4465 [0.1572; 1.2683] Qian_2024 Conventional Retzius 0.3388 [0.1789; 0.6415] Sayyid_2017 Conventional Retzius 0.3388 [0.1789; 0.6415] Tahra_2021 Conventional Retzius 0.3388 [0.1789; 0.6415] Number of studies: k = 14 Number of pairwise comparisons: m = 14 Number of observations: o = 2127 Number of treatments: n = 3 Number of designs: d = 3 Random effects model Treatment estimate (sm = 'OR', comparison: other treatments vs 'Conventional'): OR 95%-CI z p-value Conventional . . . . Retzius 2.9518 [1.5587; 5.5900] 3.32 0.0009 Ultra 2.2399 [0.7885; 6.3630] 1.51 0.1301 Quantifying heterogeneity / inconsistency: tau^2 = 0.5641; tau = 0.7511; I^2 = 56.8% [19.8%; 76.7%] Tests of heterogeneity (within designs) and inconsistency (between designs): Q d.f. p-value Total 27.78 12 0.0060 Within designs 27.38 11 0.0040 Between designs 0.41 1 0.5230 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 0.8429 Ultra 0.6244 Conventional 0.0327 --- SUCRA RANKING --- SUCRA Retzius 0.8450 Ultra 0.6214 Conventional 0.0337 - based on 20000 simulations --- GLOBAL INCONSISTENCY: DESIGN-BY-TREATMENT --- Q statistics to assess homogeneity / consistency Q df p-value Total 27.78 12 0.0060 Within designs 27.38 11 0.0040 Between designs 0.41 1 0.5230 Design-specific decomposition of within-designs Q statistic Design Q df p-value Conventional:Retzius 27.13 9 0.0013 Conventional:Ultra 0.24 2 0.8857 Between-designs Q statistic after detaching of single designs (influential designs have p-value markedly different from 0.5230) Detached design Q df p-value Conventional:Retzius 0.00 0 -- Conventional:Ultra 0.00 0 -- Retzius:Ultra 0.00 0 -- 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 1 0.9946 0.6913 0.4778 --- 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 10 0.92 2.9518 2.9606 2.8565 1.0364 0.03 0.9758 Ultra:Conventional 3 0.71 2.2399 2.2171 2.2979 0.9648 -0.03 0.9758 Retzius:Ultra 1 0.37 1.3178 1.2884 1.3353 0.9648 -0.03 0.9758 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)