Wang 2008a.

Methods	Study design: RCT. Study duration: May 2005 to December 2006. Follow‐up/Treatment duration: 2 weeks.
Participants	Country: Taiwan. Setting: single centre. Patients with radio‐opaque lower ureteral stones. Number: treatment group 1: 32; treatment group 2: 32; control group: 31. Mean age ± SD, years: treatment group 1: 50.4 ± 9.7; treatment group 2: 51.4 ± 8.6; control group: 50.9 ± 9.6. Sex, M/F: treatment group 1: 22/10; treatment group 2: 21/11; control group: 23/8. Exclusion criteria: UTI; high‐grade hydronephrosis; diabetes; ulcers; history of hypersensitivity to 1‐blockers; pregnant women; history of spontaneous stone expulsion; hypotension; systolic blood pressure 110 mm Hg; underwent previous ureteral surgery.
Interventions	Treatment group 1 (tamsulosin 0.4 mg) Treatment group 2 (terazosin 2 mg) Control group All participants were prescribed ketorolac 10 mg, 3 times/d, allowed to use sublingual buprenorphine 0.3 mg as needed, and were required to drink a minimum of 2 L water/d.
Outcomes	Stone expulsion rate. Stone expulsion time. Number of episodes of colic. Lower urinary tract symptoms (frequency, residual urine, difficulty, urine retention, and tenesmus). Amount of analgesic consumed. Adverse events.
Funding sources	None stated.
Declarations of interest	None stated.
Notes	Follow‐up with KUB and abdominal US.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "... randomly divided into three groups using the statistical software programs Plus 1.0 and Plus 2.10." 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: no participants lost to follow‐up; 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.