Yilmaz 2005.

Methods	Study design: RCT. Study duration: NS. Follow‐up/Treatment duration: 1 month.
Participants	Country: Turkey. Setting: NS. Patients, 18‐65 years, with radio‐opaque stones ≤ 10 mm located in the distal ureter; assessment by KUB and US before treatment. Number: treatment group 1: 29; treatment group 2: 28; treatment group 3: 29; control group: 28. Mean age ± SD, years: treatment group 1: 40.62 ± 10.27; treatment group 2: 41.67 ± 11.41; treatment group 3: 42.13 ± 10.4; control group: 41.60 ± 12.01. Sex, M/F: treatment group 1: 9/20; treatment group 2: 9/19; treatment group 3: 9/20; control group: 19/9. Exclusion criteria: presence of UTI; radiolucency stones; severe hydronephrosis; diabetes; ulcer disease; hypotension; having calcium antagonist; history of distal ureter surgery.
Interventions	Treatment group 1 Tamsulosin 0.4 mg once daily. Treatment group 2 Terazosin 5 mg once daily. Treatment group 3 Doxazosin 4 mg once daily. Control group No treatment. All participants were allowed to use symptomatic therapy with injections of 75 mg diclofenac on demand and were required to consume a minimum of 2 L of water daily.
Outcomes	Stone expulsion rate. Stone expulsion time. Amount of analgesic compound. Pain episodes.
Funding sources	None stated.
Declarations of interest	None stated.
Notes	Each participant was controlled with KUB and US every week.
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. 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.