Singh 2011a.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study design: prospective RCT Number of centers/setting: single center/outpatient Country: India Dates of the study: January 2006 to June 2008
Participants	Total number of participants randomized: 120 tamsulosin group: 60 control group: 60 Age (mean, years): tamsulosin group: 34.2 (SD 13.9) control group: 36 (SD 12.2) Sex (M/F): tamsulosin group: 42/18 control group: 42/17 Stone location: lower ureter Stone size: not reported Inclusion criteria: consecutive patients ages > 18 years with symptomatic, unilateral, solitary lower ureteric calculus confirmed by abdominal x‐ray and sonography KUB 4–12 mm in major axis Exclusion criteria: active UTI, fever, acute renal failure, chronic renal failure, history of urinary tract surgery or endoscopic treatment, uncorrected distal obstruction, severe hydronephrosis, pregnancy, concomitant treatment with alpha‐blockers, calcium channel blockers, steroids, morbid obesity, history of previous failed ESWL
Interventions	Treatment group: tamsulosin 0.4 mg/day for 1 month or complete clearance of stone, whichever was earlier standard care: advised to take 2500 mL fluid daily, antibiotics and analgesic diclofenac PRN during the study period Control group: control SWL: Lithotriptor: electromagnetic Lithotripter (HK–ESWL–VI Shenzhen, China) Power setting: 12–15 kV, interval: not reported Number of shocks: max 3000, number of sessions: 1
Outcomes	Doses of analgesic required, stone free rate, clearance time, any complications How measured: x‐ray, ultrasound KUB Time point measured: weekly through 4 weeks Subgroups: stone size (4–7 mm, 8–12 mm)
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: 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	High risk	Quote: "open label study." Comment: 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: investigators likely not blinded in this open label study.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Investigator assessed; susceptible (major adverse events)	High risk	Comment: investigators likely not blinded in this open label study.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Quote: "one patient from control group was withdrawn from the study due to severe colic and underwent ureteroscopy." Comment: low loss‐to‐follow‐up rate.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Comment: no protocol available.
Other bias (additional SWL sessions)	Low risk	Quote: "single session of ESWL." Comment: 1 SWL session was administered.