Cakıroglu 2013.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Number of centers/setting: single center/hospital Country: Turkey Dates of the study: June 2008 to July 2011
Participants	Total number of participants randomized: 123 tamsulosin group: not reported standard medical therapy alone group: not reported Age (mean, years): tamsulosin group: 44.66 (SD 13.25) standard medical therapy alone group: 42.19 (SD 13.17) Sex (M/F): tamsulosin group: 47/12 standard medical therapy alone group: 51/13 Stone location: ureteral Stone size (mean, mm): tamsulosin group: 11.4 (SD 3.01) standard medical therapy alone group: 42.19 (SD 13.17) Inclusion criteria: people with a solitary ureteral stone ≥ 6 mm up to 15 mm and located in the upper, middle or lower ureter underwent SWL Exclusion criteria: ages ≤ 18 years; weight < 50 kg or > 100 kg; severe skeletal malformation; pregnancy; aortic or renal artery aneurysm, or both; history of drug or alcohol abuse; long‐term use of drugs such as antidepressants, histamine blockers and anxiolytics; allergy study medications; concomitant treatment with calcium antagonists or alpha1‐blocker, or both; concomitant renal stones; previous unsuccessful attempts at SWL; elevated serum creatinine (> 2 mg/dL); UTI; diabetes; peptic ulcers; history of spontaneous stone expulsion; hypotension; coagulopathy; urinary congenital anomalies; or previous nephroureteral surgery
Interventions	Treatment group: tamsulosin 0.4 mg/day for max 28 days or until an alternative treatment was started standard care: diclofenac 75 mg intramuscularly PRN, pantoprazole 40 mg/day, after discharge drink 2 L water daily Control group: standard medical therapy alone SWL: Lithotriptor: Storz Medical AG Modulith Slk (Tӓgerwilen, Switzerland) with both ultrasonic and fluoroscopic focusing Power setting: 18.5 kV (range 6–19), interval: not reported Number of shocks: 3140 mean (range 2700–3600), number of sessions: 1
Outcomes	Not reported Subgroups: stone location
Funding sources	Not reported
Declarations of interest	None
Notes	Language of publication: English Type of publication: full text Date of contact attempt with study authors: 7 July 2019 – general inquiry to Drs Cakiroglu and Sinanoglu: Contact status: no reply to‐date
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "using the coin toss method." Comment: method of sequence generation described and appropriate.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: allocation concealment not addressed.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Comment: no mention of placebo; participants likely not blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Investigator assessed; susceptible (stone clearance, time to stone clearance)	High risk	Comment: outcome assessors likely not blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Investigator assessed; susceptible (major adverse events)	High risk	Comment: outcome assessors likely not blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: "the data for the 123 patients who completed follow‐up without dropping out met the criteria." Comment: description implied that number randomized was greater than the number included in analysis; no further details provided.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: no protocol available.
Other bias (additional SWL sessions)	High risk	Comment: Table 1 refers to > 1 SWL per participant.