Park 2012.

Methods	Study design: RCT. Study duration: NS. Follow‐up/Treatment duration: 4 weeks.
Participants	Country: Korea. Setting: NS. Patients with a single proximal ureteral calculus smaller than 7 mm. Number: study group A/control group: 30; study group B/treatment group: 30. Mean age ± SD, years: NS. Sex, M/F: NS. Exclusion criteria: NS.
Interventions	Study group A/control group Oral hydration > 2 L/d. Study group B/treatment group Oral hydration > 2 L/d. Tamsulosin 0.2 mg/d.
Outcomes	Stone expulsion rate. Patient QOL. Stone size.
Funding sources	None stated.
Declarations of interest	None stated.
Notes	Follow‐up weekly with KUB or CT. Primary endpoint was cumulative stone passage rate.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No quotes available. Comment: randomisation stated but no information on method used was available; therefore risk of selection bias was considered to be unclear.
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. Not all participants received CT scan at the end of the trial period. Comment: Owing to insufficient information, risk of detection bias was considered to be unclear.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	No quotes available. Comment: a significant number of participants lost to follow‐up (20%‐30%); therefore risk of attrition bias was considered to be high.
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	Unclear risk	No quotes available. Comment: Owing to insufficient information to permit judgement, risk of other sources of bias was considered to be unclear.