Micali 2007.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Number of centers/setting: not reported Country: Italy Dates of the study: January 2003 to March 2005
Participants	Total number of participants randomized: 113 tamsulosin group: 28 control group: 21 nifedipine group: 35 control 2 group: 29 Age (mean, years): tamsulosin group: 45 control group: 46 nifedipine group 47 control 2 group: 48 Sex (M/F): tamsulosin group: 16/12 control group: 11/10 nifedipine group: 23/12 control 2 group: 17/12 Stone location: tamsulosin group: lower ureteral control group: lower ureteral nifedipine group: mid‐ureteral control 2 group: mid‐ureteral Stone size (mean, mm): tamsulosin group: 10 (SD 2.59) control group: 9.9 (SD 1.37) nifedipine group: 10.4 (SD 2.27) control 2 group: 10.25 (SD 1.35) Inclusion criteria: people with radiopaque or radiolucent ureteral lithiasis selected for ESWL treatment Exclusion criteria: signs and symptoms of UTI, pregnancy, multiple stones, severe hydronephrosis, hypotension, gastric ulcer disease, obesity, history of spontaneous stone expulsion, previous ureteral surgery
Interventions	Treatment group: tamsulosin 0.4 mg/day for 14 days standard care: diclofenac 75 mg intramuscular PRN and recommended oral 1.5–2 L water per day; ketoprofen 50 mg twice daily orally for 7 days as an antiedema agent in intervention groups only Control group: standard care only (lower ureteral stones) Comparator group: nifedipine 30 mg/day orally for 14 days Control 2 group: standard care only (mid‐ureteral stones) SWL: Lithotriptor: Dornier Lithotripter S, an electromagnetic, third‐generation unit Power setting: not reported, interval: not reported Number of shocks: not reported, number of sessions: 1
Outcomes	Stone free condition: complete absence of any stone or the presence of residual fragments < 3 mm in diameter How measured: x‐ray KUB, ultrasound or excretory urography, or both Time point measured: 30, 60 days Subgroups: stone location (upper, middle, lower ureteral), follow‐up stage (1, 2 months)
Funding sources	Not reported
Declarations of interest	Not reported
Notes	Language of publication: English 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	Comment: randomization not specified but confirmed by authors; method of random sequence generation not specified.
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: no mention of placebo; outcome assessors likely not blinded.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Investigator assessed; susceptible (major adverse events)	High risk	Comment: no mention of placebo; outcome assessors likely not blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "All the patients completed the study." Comment: based on reported denominators, all randomized participants appear to have been included in analyses of all reported outcomes.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: no protocol available.
Other bias (additional SWL sessions)	Low risk	Quote: "all patients underwent a single session of ESWL." Comment: single SWL session; additional treatments accounted for as auxiliary treatments.