Bajwa 2013.

Methods	Study design: RCT. Study duration: 11 March 2011 to 11 September 2011. Follow‐up/Treatment duration: 28 days.
Participants	Country: Pakistan. Setting: single centre. Patients with lower ureteric stones. Number: treatment group: 30; control group: 30. Mean age ± SD, years: overall: 33.15 ± 8.97; control group: 33.87 ± 9.61; tamsulosin group: 32.43 ± 8.33. Sex, M/F: control group: 19/11; tamsulosin group: 18/12. Exclusion criteria: obstruction; stone size > 1 cm; UTI.
Interventions	Treatment group Tamsulosin 4 mg once daily. Control group Diclofenac 50 mg on demand twice daily.
Outcomes	Stone size. Stone passage rate. Stone expulsion time.
Funding sources	None stated.
Declarations of interest	None stated.
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: “The patients satisfying the inclusion criteria were randomly divided in to 2 groups by random number table.” 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 completed the study; therefore risk of attrition bias was considered to be low.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	No quotes available. Comment: Primary outcomes were not prespecified; therefore risk of reporting bias was considered to be high.
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.