Mohamed 2013.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: prospective RCT Number of centers/setting: single center/outpatient Country: Egypt Dates of the study: July 2010 to May 2012
Participants	Total number of participants randomized: 130 tamsulosin group: 65 control group: 65 Age (mean, years): tamsulosin group: 40.1 (SD 11.8) control group: 43.8 (SD 10.4) Sex (M/F): tamsulosin group: 41/24 control group: 39/26 Stone location: tamsulosin group: 25 upper ureteral/14 mid‐ureteral/26 lower ureteral control group: 31 upper ureteral/13 mid‐ureteral/21 lower ureteral Stone size (mean, mm): not reported Inclusion criteria: solitary ureteric stone 5–15 mm diameter Exclusion criteria: aged < 15 years, pregnancy, uncontrolled UTI, multiple ureteric stones, presence of ureteric stricture distal to stone, previous unsuccessful ESWL, concomitant use of calcium‐channel blockers or alpha‐blockers, uncorrected coagulation profile, severe vertebral malformation, morbid obesity, severe cardiopulmonary disorders, elevated serum creatinine (> 2 mg/dL), high grade hydronephrosis, diabetes mellitus, bladder outlet obstruction, neuropathic bladder, gastric ulcer disease (to avoid exacerbation of ulcer disease by analgesics)
Interventions	Treatment group: tamsulosin 0.4 mg/day for 3 weeks standard care: oral fluids, furosemide 20 mg every morning and diclofenac sodium tablets 50 mg 3 times/day or a 75 mg ampoule PRN Control group: standard medical therapy alone SWL: Lithotriptor: electromagnetic lithotripter (Dornier SII, Germany) under fluoroscopic guidance for radio‐opaque stones and ultrasound guidance for 13 radiolucent stones Power setting: mean 13.5 (range 12–15) kV, interval: 80–100/min Number of shocks: max 3000–4000, number of sessions: max 3
Outcomes	Primary: stone clearance, failure, clinically significant residual fragments, stone free, complications, auxiliary procedures How measured: KUB Time point measured: 30, 908 days Secondary: expulsion time, median number of ESWL sessions, steinstrasse, cumulative diclofenac dose Subgroups: stone location, stone size
Funding sources	None
Declarations of interest	None
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)	Low risk	Quote: "the 130 and 30 patients were randomized into two equal groups using a computer program." Comment: appropriate method of random sequence generation.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: allocation concealment not described.
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; 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 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	Comment: based on flow diagram, all randomized participants included in analyses of reported outcomes.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: no protocol available.
Other bias (additional SWL sessions)	Unclear risk	Comment: several sessions; unclear how many participants received how many SWL sessions.