Hammoud 2014.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Number of centers/setting: single center/not reported Country: Egypt Dates of the study: January 2010 to October 2012
Participants	Total number of participants randomized: 96 tamsulosin group: 47 control group: 49 Age (mean, years): tamsulosin group: 28.6 (SD 7.07) control group: 29.5 (SD 7.04) Sex (M/F): tamsulosin group: 47/0 control group: 49/0 Stone location: tamsulosin group: 35 renal/12 upper ureteral control group: 33 renal/10 upper ureteral Stone size (mean, mm): tamsulosin group: 13 (SD 4.96) control group: 12.3 (SD 4.82) Inclusion criteria: males with solitary, radio‐opaque upper urinary tract stones, ≤ 20 mm in the maximum diameter Exclusion criteria: not reported
Interventions	Treatment group: tamsulosin 0.4 mg/day standard care: drink liberal fluids, analgesic PRN Control group: control SWL: Lithotriptor: not reported Power setting: not reported, interval: not reported Number of shocks: max 3500, number of sessions: max 3; repeated at 2 week intervals
Outcomes	Primary: stone clearance and analgesic dose How measured: x‐ray Time point measured: 2 weeks after last SWL session Secondary: clearance rate, time to clearance Subgroups: stone location (renal, upper ureteric), size (5–10 mm, 11–20 mm), timing (2, 4, 6, 8 weeks)
Funding sources	None
Declarations of interest	Not reported
Notes	Language of publication: English Type of publication: abstract only Date of contact attempt with study authors: none Contact status: N/A
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: method of random sequence generation unclear.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: unclear whether allocation was concealed.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: no placebo use described; participants likely not blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Investigator assessed; susceptible (stone clearance, time to stone clearance)	Unclear risk	Comment: outcome assessors likely not blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Investigator assessed; susceptible (major adverse events)	Unclear risk	Comment: outcome assessors likely not blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Comment: unable to assess what proportion of randomized participants were included in outcome analyses.
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.