Erturhan 2007.

Methods	Study design: RCT. Study duration: December 2004 to November 2005. Follow‐up/Treatment duration: maximum 3 weeks.
Participants	Country: Turkey. Setting: single centre. Patients with distal ureteral stones < 10 mm. Number: treatment group 1: 30; treatment group 2: 30; treatment group 3: 30; control group: 30. Mean age (range, years): treatment group 1: 32.7 (19‐41); treatment group 2: 35.8 (22‐48); treatment group 3: 34.7 (24‐49); control group: 31.4 (20‐51). Sex, M/F: treatment group 1: 21/9; treatment group 2: 17/13; treatment group 3: 13/17; control group: 19/11. Exclusion criteria: severe hydronephrosis; a solitary kidney; an extra stone in the upper urinary system; underwent previous surgery for a urinary system stone; a non‐opaque stone; diseases such as diabetes or hypertension; pregnant; renal reserve reduced by > 50%.
Interventions	Treatment group 1: Tamsulosin 0.4 mg daily. Treatment group 2: Tamsulosin 0.4 mg daily. Tolterodine 2 mg, twice daily. Treatment group 3: Tolterodine 2 mg, twice daily. Control group: No medical treatment. All participants were treated with prophylactic antibiotic therapy (cefuroxime axetil 250 mg (once a day)) and received 2500 mL hydration daily.
Outcomes	Stone expulsion rate. Stone expulsion time. VAS.
Funding sources	None stated.
Declarations of interest	None stated.
Notes	Weekly checkups and follow‐up with renal ultrasonography, complete urinalysis, serum urea creatinine measurements, and direct urinary system graphics.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: “After randomization to one of four groups, the patients received treatment.” Comment: Owing to insufficient information, random sequence generation was considered to be at unclear 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 be at 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. 5 participants were lost to follow‐up; they were included in the analysis. Comment: Owing to the small number of participants lost to follow‐up, 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.