Kang 2009.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: prospective, multicenter RCT Number of centers/setting: multicenter/outpatients Country: South Korea Dates of the study: July 2007 to December 2007
Participants	Total number of participants randomized: 207 tamsulosin + diclofenac group: 115 diclofenac only group: 92 Age (mean, years): tamsulosin + diclofenac group: 51.08 (SD 12.77) diclofenac only group: 47.6 (SD 13.59) Sex (M/F): tamsulosin + diclofenac group: 73/42 diclofenac only group: 59/33 Stone location: tamsulosin + diclofenac group: 18 renal/50 upper ureteral/47 lower ureteral diclofenac only group: 19 renal/34 upper ureteral/39 lower ureteral Stone size: not reported Inclusion criteria: people with ≥ 4 mm renal or ureteral stone with acute pain Exclusion criteria: non‐functioning kidney, severe pain which is not relieved by conservative treatment, multiple stones, severe hydronephrosis, pregnancy, serum creatinine ≥ 2.5 mg/dL, history of ureteral operation, ureteral stricture and ureteral stent placement
Interventions	Treatment group: tamsulosin 0.2 mg once per day for 1 week diclofenac 100 mg once per day for 1 week standard care: not reported Control group: diclofenac 100 mg once per day for 1 week SWL: Lithotriptor: Compact Delta II (Dornier Medtech, Germany); E‐3000 (Medispec, USA); Sonolith Praktis (EDAP TMS, Germany) Power setting: not reported, interval: not reported Number of shocks: not reported, number of sessions: 1
Outcomes	Stone clearance rate, pain change after treatment, distance of stone migration (if stone was not passed), stone clearance rate according to SWL machines How measured: pain: VAS; other outcomes: not reported Time point measured: 1 week Subgroups: expulsion rate according to SWL machines
Funding sources	Not reported
Declarations of interest	Not reported
Notes	Language of publication: Korean Type of publication: full text 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	Quote: "prospective randomized study."
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No information given.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	No information given.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Investigator assessed; susceptible (stone clearance, time to stone clearance)	Unclear risk	No information given.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Investigator assessed; susceptible (major adverse events)	Unclear risk	No information given.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All participants were included in the analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	No protocol available
Other bias (additional SWL sessions)	Unclear risk	Comment: number of SWL sessions unclear.