Balci 2014.

Methods	Study design: RCT. Study duration: January 2010 and February 2011. Follow‐up/Treatment duration: 28 days.
Participants	Country: Turkey. Setting: single centre. Stones in the lower one‐third of the ureter. Number: treatment group 1: 25; treatment group 2: 25; control group: 25. Mean age ± SD, years: 36.8 ± 11.3 overall. Sex, M/F: not mentioned. Exclusion criteria: proximal or intramural part of ureteral stone; active urinary tract infection; ureterohydronephrosis; acute renal failure; fever; multiple ureteral stones; history of surgery or endoscopic procedure of urolithiasis; chronic renal failure; diabetes mellitus; peptic ulcer; concomitant treatment with alpha‐blocker and beta‐blocker, calcium antagonists, or nitrates; pregnancy; lactation; patient desire for immediate stone removal.
Interventions	Treatment group 1 Tamsulosin 0.4 mg once daily. Treatment group 2 Nifedipine 30 mg once daily. Control group Diclofenac sodium 50 mg. All participants were encouraged to maintain water intake of 2‐2.5 L/d.
Outcomes	Stone expulsion rate. HU of stones. Expulsion time. Rate of pain relief therapy. Mean analgesic consumption. Drug side effects.
Funding sources	None.
Declarations of interest	None.
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: “Randomization was performed using the Power Analysis & Sample Size Software (PASS_ ) for Windows (NCSS Inc., Kaysville, UT). According to the software, the patients were randomly assigned to one of the following three groups.” 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)	Unclear risk	No quotes available. Comment: Owing to insufficient information to permit judgement, risk of reporting bias was considered to be unclear.
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.