Zehri 2010.

Methods	Study design: open‐label RCT. Study duration: 15 March 2007 to 15 September 2007. Follow‐up/Treatment duration: 4 weeks.
Participants	Country: Pakistan. Setting: single centre. Patients with distal ureteral stones 4‐7 mm, presenting to the ED or to the outpatient clinic; assessed with NCCT. Number: treatment group: 33; control group: 32. Mean age, years: treatment group: 32.63; control group: 33.62. Sex, M/F: treatment group: 31/2; control group: 25/7. Exclusion criteria: UTI; ureteral stricture; diabetes; ulcer disease; history of hypersensitivity to doxazosin; solitary kidney; severe hydronephrosis; SCr > 2 mg/dL; multiple ureteral stones; hypotension; pain not controlled on analgesics; pregnant.
Interventions	Treatment group Doxazosin 2 mg 1 hour before sleep for a maximum of 28 days. Control group No treatment. Both groups received 50 mg diclofenac twice daily for a maximum of 10 days and were allowed to drink 2 L of fluids daily.
Outcomes	Stone expulsion rate. Stone expulsion time. Quantity of analgesics used. Need for hospitalisation or endoscopic procedures or both. Side effects.
Funding sources	None stated.
Declarations of interest	None stated.
Notes	Weekly follow‐up with KUB or US. Sample size was calculated.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Quote: “Randomization was done by assigning consecutive patients to alternate groups." Comment: This method of random sequence generation was considered to have high risk of bias.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	No quotes available. Comment: The type of allocation concealment used in this study was considered to have high risk of bias.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Quote: "open‐label." No blinding performed. Comment: Risk of performance bias was considered to be high.
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: one exclusion; 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.