Autorino 2005.

Methods	Study design: single‐centre RCT. Study duration: unclear. Follow‐up/treatment: maximum 2‐week treatment.
Participants	Country: Italy. Setting: single centre. Patients with symptomatic ≤ 10 mm distal ureteral stones, diagnosed with NCCT. Number: treatment group: 50; control group: 46. Mean age ± SD, years: treatment group: 46.3 ± 10.9; control group: 44.5 ± 11.3. Sex, M/F: treatment group: 36/14; control group: 26/20. Exclusion criteria: UTI; severe hydronephrosis; diabetes; ulcer disease; hypotension or hypertension treated with alpha‐blockers or calcium antagonists; pregnancy; multiple stones; history of spontaneous stone expulsion; ureteral stricture.
Interventions	Treatment group Tamsulosin 0.4 mg once daily. Standard therapy Diclofenac 100 mg daily. Control group Standard therapy Diclofenac 100 mg daily. Aescin (an anti‐oedema extract of the horse chestnut tree) 80 mg daily.
Outcomes	Stone expulsion rate. Expulsion time. Need for analgesics. Need for hospitalisation. Drug side effects.
Funding sources	None stated.
Declarations of interest	None stated.
Notes	Aescin = standard therapy at this centre. Included participants from the study by Autorino et al 2005.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: “Randomization, not blinded, was performed using a stratified permuted randomization algorithm.” Comment: This method of random sequence generation was considered to have low risk of bias.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No quotes available. Insufficient information to permit judgement. Comment: Owing to insufficient information, allocation concealment was considered to have unclear risk of bias.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No quotes available. No blinding described. Comment: Owing to insufficient information, risk of performance bias was considered to be unclear.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No quotes available. No blinding of outcome assessments described. Comment: Owing to insufficient information, risk of detection bias was considered to be unclear.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No quotes available. Comment: All participants were included in the analysis; therefore risk of attrition bias was considered to be low.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	No quotes available. Expected outcomes were reported according to objectives. Comment: Risk of reporting bias was therefore considered to be low.
Other bias	Low risk	No quotes available. Study appears to be free of other sources of bias. Comment: No other sources of bias could be found; therefore risk of other bias was considered to be low.