*5.4. Statistical Analysis*

The network meta-analysis was performed using R 3.3.2 software (Bell Laboratories, Madison, WI, USA, 2016) and STATA version 15.0 (StataCorp. LP, College Station, TX, USA, 2017). All outcomes

of interests were compared pairwise by calculating *I <sup>2</sup>* statistics. Study heterogeneity was assessed using the R package. Node splitting analysis was performed to evaluate inconsistencies by comparing differences between the direct and indirect evidence. Dichotomous variables and continuous variables were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs and weighted mean differences with 95% CIs, respectively. A RE model was used to calculate evidence inconsistencies because of the existence of heterogeneity among the included trials and each intervention comparison. The ranking probabilities for the different OAB symptoms interventions were also calculated with regard to each outcome of interest. Additionally, publication bias was evaluated according to the symmetry characteristics of funnel plots, with a symmetrical and concentrated distribution of dots implying no significant deviation.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, S.-J.C.; methodology, M.-Y.W.; software, M.-Y.W.; validation, C.-W.L. and S.-J.C.; formal analysis, M.-Y.W.; investigation, C.-W.L.; data curation, C.-W.L.; writing—original draft preparation, C.-W.L.; writing—review and editing, S.-J.C.; visualization, C.-W.L.; supervision, F.-S.J. and S.S.-D.Y. All authors have read and agree to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, grant number: TCRD-TPE-106-RT-6 and TCRD-TPE-107-51

**Conflicts of Interest:** All contributing authors declare that they have no conflicting interests.
