*5.2. Data Extraction and Quality Asessment*

Two investigators (CWL and SJC) independently reviewed the titles and abstracts to check their relevance and adherence to the eligibility criteria. The full text of articles was assessed if their eligibility was not clear from the abstract. A preliminary network was constructed based on the intervention and comparators in the included trials. The homogeneity of the included trials was also evaluated.

Two investigators (CWL and SJC) reviewed the quality of the included studies. The risk of bias was evaluated using the RoB 2 (Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials) tool to evaluate the quality of evidence [36]. The following domains were evaluated: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete data on outcomes, selective reporting, and other bias. The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates was also followed. Urination frequency/day, incontinence, and ≥50% symptom improvement were selected because of their relevance to clinical symptom improvement. The quality of evidence was rated as very low, low, moderate or high.

When standard deviation data was missing or only 95% confidence intervals (CI) were listed, the standard deviation was calculated using the formula in the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, or it was calculated from the figure data in the article or supplemental data.
