Eryildirim 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Number of centers/setting: presumed single center/not reported Country: Turkey Dates of the study: January 2015 to December 2015
Participants	Total number of participants randomized: 80 tamsulosin group: 40 control group: 40 Age (mean, years): tamsulosin group: 39.04 (SD 12) control group: 39.81 (SD 14.21) Sex (M/F): not reported Stone location: upper ureteral Stone size: not reported Inclusion criteria: > 18 years, treated with SWL for 5–10 mm single radio‐opaque upper ureteral stones (above iliac vessels) Exclusion criteria: people with multiple stones, previous stone related procedures, obstruction, stent placement, auxiliary procedures, congenital anomalies, active UTI, pregnancy or renal insufficiency
Interventions	Treatment group: tamsulosin 0.4 mg/day for up to 4 weeks standard care: diclofenac sodium 75 mg enteric‐coated tablets for colic pain if needed Control group: standard care only SWL: Lithotriptor: electromagnetic lithotriptor (Compact Sigma, Dornier MedTech, Wessling, Germany) Power setting: not reported, interval: not reported Number of shocks: not reported, number of sessions: 1
Outcomes	Primary: HRQoL How measured: HRQoL: EQ‐5D index scale and EQ‐5D VAS Time point measured: up to 4 weeks Secondary: stone free rate, analgesic requirement, number renal colic attacks and emergency room visits Subgroups: not reported
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 Dr Eryildirim Contact status: no reply to‐date
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "a simple method by generating a random digit (0–60) was used." Comment: appropriate method of random sequence generation was used.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Quote: "even numbers were used for cases undergoing SWL without MET and odd numbers were used for cases undergoing SWL procedure followed by MET initiation." Comment: allocation not concealed.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Comment: no placebo use described; participants likely not blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Investigator assessed; not susceptible (auxiliary treatments)	Low risk	Comment: outcome judged not susceptible to detection bias.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Investigator assessed; susceptible (stone clearance, time to stone clearance)	High risk	Comment: no blinding of outcome assessors described; likely not blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Investigator assessed; susceptible (major adverse events)	High risk	Comment: no blinding of outcome assessors described; likely not blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: "following the exclusion of cases requiring DJ stent placement (a total of 12 cases; seven cases in group 1 and five cases in group 2)." Comment: 10–19% of randomized participants not included in analyses of reported outcomes.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: no protocol available.
Other bias (additional SWL sessions)	Unclear risk	Comment: unclear whether > 1 SWL session was administered.