Expulsive Therapy For Ureteral Stones Research Articles

The Efficacy of Mirabegron in Medical Expulsive Therapy for Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background This study aimed to assess the efficacy of mirabegron (50 mg daily) as a medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones in adults. Materials and Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to July 2021 to collect the clinical trials. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies by using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Review Manager 5.3 software was used for the meta-analysis. Results A total of four studies were included, involving 398 patients: 197 patients in mirabegron group and 201 patients in control group. The meta-analysis showed that the stone expulsion rate was higher in the mirabegron group than in the control group (OR: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.33 to 3.40; p=0.002). Subgroup analysis identified that the stone expulsion rate of patients with stone size <5/6 mm was significantly higher than that of patients with stone size ≥5/6 mm (OR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.72; p=0.006). But no significant difference was identified between the mirabegron group and the control group for the stone expulsion interval (MD: −1.16, 95% CI: −3.56 to 1.24; p=0.35). In terms of pain episodes, the mirabegron group was significantly lower than that of the control group (MD: −0.34, 95% CI: −0.50 to 0.19; p < 0.0001). Conclusions The medical expulsive therapy with mirabegron had a significant effect in improving the stone expulsion rate for patients with ureteral stones, especially in those whose stone size <5/6 mm. Mirabegron had no effect on the stone expulsion interval but did decrease the pain episodes.

Role of Medical Expulsive Therapy in Ureterolithiasis

Objective: Medical expulsive therapy (MET) for urolithiasis has gained increasing attention in the last few years. MET is an excellent treatment modality for ureteric stones in the appropriately selected patients. This study was carried out to study the role of MET in the treatment of upper/middle/lower ureteric and VUJ calculi to compare the safety and efficacy of tamsulosin and tamsulosin with Deflazacort as medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones.&#x0D; Materials and methods: Between July 2013 to June 2014, 105 adult patients with ureteric stones sized 5mm to 10mm were randomized equally to treatment with tamsulosin or tamsulosin with deflazacort. Therapy was given for a maximum of 6 weeks. The stone expulsion rate, mean time to expulsion (days), site of stones passed, endoscopic treatment (URS) and adverse effects of the drugs were noted. Statistical analysis was done by using student’s t-test and chi-square test.&#x0D; Results: Total 105 patients were included in this study. Only Tamsulosin 0.4mg once daily was given to 53 patients in group A. Fifty two patients in group B were treated with Tamsulosin 0.4mg once daily plus Deflazacort 6mg twice daily.The stone expulsion rate was 84.9% (45/53) in group A and 96.1% (50/52) in group B. Mean expulsion time (days) was shorter in group B. It was 4.96 days in group B compared with group A (8.53 days) which was highly statistically significant.&#x0D; Conclusion: Medical expulsive therapy (MET) for ureteric stones using tamsulosin and tamsulosin with Deflazacort is safe and efficacious. Tamsulosin with Deflazacort is very effective in expelling stones present in all the levels of the ureter.&#x0D; Bangladesh Journal of Urology, Vol. 17, No. 2, July 2014 p.67-70

Efficacy of silodosin or mirabegron in medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones: a prospective, randomized-controlled study.

To evaluate the efficacy of silodosin or mirabegron as a medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones in adults. This is a prospective, randomized multicentric study. Patients who had ureter stones in size between 4 and 10mm were assessed prospectively. Patients were divided into three groups with equal randomization. Group 1 was the control group; group 2 took silodosin 8mg, and group 3 took mirabegron 50mg once daily. All 169 patients were included in the final analysis. The spontaneous expulsion rate was similar between groups. In patients with distal localization, the stone expulsion interval was shorter in the silodosin group (7.1 ± 4.5days) than the control (12 ± 8.7) (p = 0.034). In patients with stone size smaller than 6mm, the stone expulsion interval was shorter in the silodosin group (5.8 ± 4) than the control (12.2 ± 2.8) (p = 0.004); the analgesic requirement was less in the silodosin group (1.4 ± 1.3) than in the control (3.6 ± 2.8) (p = 0.028). Mirabegron had no effect on stone expulsion interval in any analysis. In patients with distal localization or stone size bigger or equal to 6mm, the need for an analgesic was less in the mirabegron group (1.8 ± 1.9) (1.9 ± 1.8) than in the control (3.6 ± 2.3) (3.2 ± 1.8), respectively (p = 0.004) (p = 0.017). Silodosin or mirabegron does not improve the stone expulsion rate. Silodosin improves the stone expulsion interval and decreases the need for an analgesic or < 6mm stones. Mirabegron has no effect on the stone expulsion interval, but decreases the need for an analgesic in patients with distal or sized ≥ 6mm stones.

Tamsulosin as a Medical Expulsive Therapy for Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Tamsulosin is widely administered as a medical expulsive therapy to facilitate stone passage in patients with ureteral calculi. Recently several large, multicenter, randomized controlled trials revealed conflicting results, which led to considerable uncertainty about the efficacy of tamsulosin in the management of ureteral stones. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tamsulosin in the management of ureteral stones. We searched MEDLINE®, Embase®, Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar™ and the Cochrane Central Search Library databases up to June 2018. Two reviewers independently evaluated eligible randomized controlled trials of the efficacy of tamsulosin to treat ureteral stones. Study quality was assessed with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity. Included in study were 56 randomized controlled trials in a total of 9,395 patients. The observed treatment effect indicated that tamsulosin was associated with a higher stone expulsion rate (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.35-1.55, p <0.01), a shorter stone expulsion time (weighted mean difference -0.73, 95% CI -1.00--0.45, p <0.01), a lesser incidence of ureteral colic (weighted mean difference -0.81, 95% CI -1.24--0.39, p <0.01) and fewer incidences of requiring subsequent intervention (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.93, p = 0.017). Treatment with tamsulosin did not differ from a control group in the overall incidence of side effects (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.86-1.51, p = 0.36). On subgroup analysis we observed a significant benefit in the stone expulsion rate for tamsulosin among patients with stones greater than 5 mm (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.22-1.68, p <0.01) but no effect for stones 5 mm or less (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.99-1.68, p <0.01). Our current meta-analysis results indicate that tamsulosin is effective and relatively safe in patients with ureteral stone as a medical expulsive therapy to facilitate stone passage. It is suggested to administer it selectively in patients with 5 to 10 mm ureteral stones.

Medical Expulsive Therapy for Ureteral Stones: is it Still Worthwhile?

Medical Expulsive Therapy for Ureteral Stones: is it Still Worthwhile?

Outcome of ureteric stone treatment with tamsulocin

Background and Objectives: Though medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones is increasingly used these days, some recent randomized controlled trials have questioned its benefit. This study evaluates the result of treatment of ureteric stones with tamsulosin.&#x0D; Materials and Methods: This prospective study involved ultrasonographically confirmed cases of uncomplicated unilateral ureteric stones. All patients received tamsulocin 0.4 mg daily for 2 to 6 weeks. The primary end point was stone expulsion. The secondary endpoints were the use of analgesics and adverse events. &#x0D; Results: One hundred and sixty two patients completed the study. Ninety seven patients were male and male to female ratio was 3:2. The mean age was 34.9 ± 9.8 (range: 18-71) years. The mean stone size was 6.17 ± 1.68 (range: 3.3-11.2) mm. By the end of 2, 4 and 6 weeks, cumulative stone expulsion rate was 110 (69.1%), 121 (74.7%) and 126 (77.8%) respectively. For the 49 stones of size £ 5 mm, the expulsion rate was 47 (95.9%) by the end of 6 weeks. The expulsion rates for stones of size &gt; 5 - 7 mm, &gt; 7 – 9 mm and ³ 9 mm were 59 (85.5%), 17 (53.1%) and 3 (25%) respectively by the end of 6 weeks. Lower ureteric stones had the highest expulsion rate of 106 (87.6%) by the end of 6 weeks, and the rate was lowest for upper ureteric stones (34.6%). Ten (6.1%) patients required additional analgesics during the course of treatment. Eleven (6.8%) patients complained of mild light-headedness and dizziness which subsided in a few days.&#x0D; Conclusion: Tamsulocin appears to facilitate expulsion of ureteric stones especially the distal ones. The benefit of tamsulocin seems to be maximum for the stones of size up to 9 mm. Further large scale randomized controlled trial should better define the real benefit and more rationale use of tamsulocin in routine clinical practice.

Predictor Role of Pretreatment Resistive and Pulsatile Indexes in the Success of Medical Expulsive Therapy of Ureteral Stones

To investigate the role of renal resistive index (RI) and pulsatile index levels measured with renal Doppler ultrasonography in predicting the success of medical expulsive treatment in patients with ureteral stones. Patients admitted to our clinic between January and December 2017 with a ureteral stone of less than 1 cm in diameter were evaluated in terms of their RI and pulsatile index values obtained using Doppler ultrasonography, and the localization and diameter of their stone and grade of hydronephrosis using computed tomography at the time of admission. After 4 weeks of medical expulsive treatment with tamsulosin, spontaneous stone passage was assessed to investigate the relationship between the data obtained before treatment and the success of medical expulsive treatment. Forty-eight of 71 patients passed the stone spontaneously after treatment (67.6%). Among the related variables, the largest diameter of stone and ipsilateral RI levels were independently associated with the success of medical expulsive treatment (P <.001). In the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, a RI value of less than 0.72 was associated with spontaneous stone expulsion with a sensitivity of 89.6%, a specificity of 69.6%, and a positive predictive value of 97%. It is possible to predict the success of medical expulsive treatment using RI levels. We anticipate that in patients who are not likely to pass the stones spontaneously with medical treatment, surgery should not be postponed to avoid irreversible kidney damage.

Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones.

Ureteral colic is a common reason for patients to seek medical care. Alpha-blockers are commonly used to improve stone passage through so-called medical expulsive therapy (MET), but their effectiveness remains controversial. This is an update of a 2014 Cochrane review; since that time, several large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been reported, making this update relevant. To assess effects of alpha-blockers compared with standard therapy for ureteral stones 1 cm or smaller confirmed by imaging in adult patients presenting with symptoms of ureteral stone disease. On 18 November 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, and Embase. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO Portal/ICTRP to identify all published/unpublished and ongoing trials. We checked all references of included and review articles and conference proceedings for articles relevant to this review. We sent letters to investigators to request information about unpublished or incomplete studies. We included RCTs of ureteral stone passage in adult patients that compared alpha-blockers versus standard therapy. Two review authors screened studies for inclusion and extracted data using standard methodological procedures. We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Primary outcomes were stone clearance and major adverse events; secondary outcomes were stone expulsion time, number of pain episodes, use of diclofenac, hospitalisation, and surgical intervention. We assessed the quality of evidence on a per-outcome basis using the GRADE approach. We included 67 studies with 10,509 participants overall. Of these, 15 studies with 5787 participants used a placebo.Stone clearance: Based on the overall analysis, treatment with an alpha-blocker may result in a large increase in stone clearance (risk ratio (RR) 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 1.55; low-quality evidence). A subset of higher-quality, placebo-controlled trials suggest that the likely effect is probably smaller (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.25; moderate-quality evidence), corresponding to 116 more (95% CI 51 more to 182 more) stone clearances per 1000 participants.Major adverse events: Based on the overall analysis, treatment with an alpha-blocker may have little effect on major adverse events (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.96; low-quality evidence). A subset of higher-quality, placebo-controlled trials suggest that alpha-blockers likely increase the risk of major adverse events slightly (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.86), corresponding to 29 more (95% CI 3 more to 75 more) major adverse events per 1000 participants.Patients treated with alpha-blockers may experience shorter stone expulsion times (mean difference (MD) -3.40 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -2.63; low-quality evidence), may use less diclofenac (MD -82.41, 95% CI -122.51 to -42.31; low-quality evidence), and likely require fewer hospitalisations (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77; moderate-quality evidence), corresponding to 69 fewer hospitalisations (95% CI 93 fewer to 32 fewer) per 1000 participants. Meanwhile, the need for surgical intervention appears similar (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.02; low-quality evidence), corresponding to 28 fewer surgical interventions (95% CI 51 fewer to 2 more) per 1000 participants.A predefined subgroup analysis (test for subgroup differences; P = 0.002) suggests that effects of alpha-blockers may vary with stone size, with RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.15; P = 0.16; I² = 62%) for stones 5 mm or smaller versus 1.45 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.72; P < 0.0001; I² = 59%) for stones larger than 5 mm. We found no evidence suggesting possible subgroup effects based on stone location or alpha-blocker type. For patients with ureteral stones, alpha-blockers likely increase stone clearance but probably also slightly increase the risk of major adverse events. Subgroup analyses suggest that alpha-blockers may be less effective for smaller (5 mm or smaller) than for larger stones (greater than 5 mm).

To compare the efficacy of tamsulosin and alfuzosin as medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones.

Aims and Objectives:This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of tamsulosin and alfuzosin for the distal ureteral stone. This study assessed the spontaneous passage and expulsion of the stone.Materials and Methods:The study was conducted in the Department of Surgery at Maharishi Markandeshwar Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Mullana, Ambala, from May 2013 to May 2014. A total number of 136 patients diagnosed as distal ureteric stone (US) of size <10 mm were included in this study. It was divided into two groups (I and II) out of which 36 cases were excluded. Group I received tablet tamsulosin 0.4 mg/day, and Group II received alfuzosin 10 mg/day. The efficacy of tamsulosin and alfuzosin as an adjunctive medical therapy was determined.Results:Both the drugs can be safely used for the distal USs. The stone expulsion rate was seen in 36 patients (72.0%) in Group I, and in 34 patients (68.0%) in Group II (P = 0.545). The passage of stones noticed by 32 patients in each Groups I and II (P = 1.000). The mean number of pain attacks was 2.91 ± 1.01 for Group I, and 1.8 ± 0.83 for Group II (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001). Thus, we propagate the use of alfuzosin significantly lower number of pain attacks. The drug-related side-effects were postural hypertension (four in Group I and one in Group II) and retrograde ejaculation (eight in Group I, and one in Group II). Thus, the difference was statistically significant in terms of retrograde ejaculation but insignificant for postural hypotension.Conclusion:There is no difference between both medications in term of efficacy (passing stones) for the management of distal ureteral stones. Both medications are safe and effective. In addition, alfuzosin was better tolerated than tamsulosin as it has fewer side effects.

Computed tomography findings predicting the success of silodosin for medical expulsive therapy of ureteral stones

Aim of the study is to investigate the relationship between non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) findings and stone expulsion rate with medical expulsive therapy (MET) using silodosin for ureteral stones in male adults. Between January 2014 and June 2015, we retrospectively reviewed the patient charts with uncomplicated ureteral stones on NCCT images, who were treated with silodosin for MET. Stone diameter, volume and hounsfield units (HU) measured by NCCT and treatment findings were noted at the end of treatment. Patients were divided into three groups according to the localization as distal, mid and proximal ureteral stones. NCCT and treatment findings were compared between MET success and failure groups in different localizations. Stone expulsion rate was 81.3% for 134 distal, 45.5% for 22 mid and 27.7% for 47 proximal stones. Stone diameter, volume, and HU were significantly lower for success groups with distal and proximal stones (p < 0.05). In ROC analysis the cut-off values for stone volume and HU were detected as 48.7 mm3 and 598 HU for success group with proximal stones. Stone expulsion rate was found to be 24 times more (OR = 24; p = 0.001) in patients with <598 HU and 14 times more (OR = 14; p = 0.002) in patients with <48.7 mm3 proximal stones. Lower stone diameter, volume and HU were significant predictors of success with silodosin for MET for ureteral stones. Patients with <598 HU and/or <48.7 mm3 proximal stones may be prescribed silodosin for MET.

The Role of Medical Expulsive Therapy for Ureteral Stones: Against MET

We no longer advocate the use of medical expulsive therapy in our patients. We also believe that the European Association of Urology guidelines group should believe the findings of the SUSPEND study and stop advocating the use of medical expulsive therapy.

The Role of Medical Expulsive Therapy for Ureteral Stones: Pro MET

Medical expulsive therapy is efficacious in patients with ureteric stones who are amenable to conservative management. The greatest benefit might be among those with larger stones. Therefore, the European Association of Urology Guideline Panel has kept the recommendation to offer α-blockers for patients with distal ureteral stones of 5-10mm.

14 - Computed tomography findings predicting the success of silodosin for medical expulsive therapy of ureteral stones

14 - Computed tomography findings predicting the success of silodosin for medical expulsive therapy of ureteral stones

Medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones: where do we go from here?

Despite two decades of clinical use, the effectiveness of medical expulsive therapy (MET) for the noninvasive management of patients with ureteral stones has, in the past year, been called into in question. The primary aim of MET is to expedite stone passage, although it has also shown effectiveness in reducing time to stone passage, thus reducing the incidence of colic episodes, improving stone clearance and improving patients' quality of life. At least 11 systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been published showing clinical benefits of MET; however, the results of these analyses have been challenged by data from two randomized controlled, multicentre trials with large patient cohorts, thus providing higher quality evidence that MET is ineffective in patients with ureteral stones. Results of the various systematic reviews and meta-analyses have suggested that MET is effective, however, such analyses incorporate the biases and limitations of smaller cohort studies, resulting in their conclusions being based upon lower-quality evidence. Evidence for the use of MET for small (<5 mm) distal ureteral stones has weakened based on clinical trial data published in 2015. However, MET might remain effective in the management of larger ureteral stones (>5 mm).

The efficacy and safety of silodosin for the treatment of ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BackgroundTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of silodosin as a medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of silodosin in the treatment of ureteral stones. The reference lists of retrieved studies were also investigated.ResultsSix RCTs, including 916 participants and comparing silodosin with controls, were used in the meta-analysis. Silodosin was superior to controls in terms of stone expulsion rate, the primary efficacy end point in all six RCTs (odds ratio [OR] for expulsion 2.16, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.62 to 2.86, p <0.00001). Silodosin was also more effective for secondary efficacy end points; the stone expulsion time (standardized mean difference [SMD] −3.66, 95 % CI −6.61 to −0.71; p =0.01) and analgesic requirements (SMD −0.89, 95 % CI −1.19 to −0.60; p < 0.00001) were significantly reduced compared with those of controls. Other than the incidence of abnormal ejaculation, which was higher in the silodosin groups (OR 2.84, 95 % CI 1.56 to 5.16, p =0.0006), few adverse effects were observed.ConclusionThis meta-analysis indicates silodosin is an effective and safe treatment option for ureteral stones with a low occurrence of side effects.

Therapy of nephrolithiasis: where is the evidence from clinical trials?

The prevalence of kidney stone disease is increasing worldwide with significant health and economic burden. Newer research is finding that stones are associated with several serious morbidities. Yet, few randomized clinical trials or high quality observational studies have assessed whether clinical interventions decrease the recurrence of kidney stones. Therefore, in this review we analyze the available evidence on medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones; describe the evidence about non-pharmacological stone therapy including dietary modifications and citrus juice-based therapy; and discuss the efficacy of thiazide diuretics for the treatment of hypercalciuria in recurrent nephrolithiasis.

SMS text pre-notification and delivery of reminder e-mails to increase response rates to postal questionnaires: a factorial design, randomised, controlled trial

Methods We evaluated two interventions aimed at increasing postal questionnaire response rates in a 2x2 partial factorial RCT nested within a single, large, UK-wide RCT of medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones. The interventions were: questionnaire pre-notification via SMS text prior to posting the trial questionnaires versus no pre-notification; for non-responders to the initial questionnaire mailing, use of an e-mail reminder (containing a hyperlink for online questionnaire completion) versus a postal reminder with paper questionnaire. Participants were randomised to the pre-notification comparison, the reminder comparison or both, depending on whether they supplied mobile telephone number and/or email address. The primary outcome was response to 4 and 12 week questionnaires.

Efficacy and Safety of Alfuzosin as Medical Expulsive Therapy for Ureteral Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BackgroundAlfuzosin has been widely used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia and prostatitis, and is claimed to be a selective agent for the lower urinary tract with low incidence of adverse side-effects and hypotensive changes. Recently, several randomized controlled trials have reported using Alfuzosin as an expulsive therapy of ureteral stones. Tamsulosin, another alpha blocker, has also been used as an agent for the expulsive therapy for ureteral stones. It is unclear whether alfuzosin has similar efficacy as Tamsulosin in the management of ureteral stones.ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review and analysis of literatures comparing Alfuzosin with Tamsulosin or standard conservative therapy for the treatment of ureteral stones less than 10 mm in diameter.MethodsA systematic literature review was performed in December 2014 using Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane library databases to identify relevant studies. All randomized and controlled trials were included. A subgroup analysis was performed comparing Alfuzosin with control therapy on the management of distal ureteral stones.ResultsAlfuzosin provided a significantly higher stone-free rate than the control treatments (RR: 1.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35–2.55; p<0.001), and a shorter stone expulsion time (Weighted mean difference [WMD]: -4.20 d, 95%CI, -6.19 to -2.21; p<0.001), but it has a higher complication rate (RR: 2.02; 95% CI, 1.30–3.15; p<0.01). When Alfuzosin was compared to Tamsulosin, there was no significant difference in terms of stone-free rate (RR: 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79–1.02; p = 0.09) as well as the stone expulsion time (WMD: 0.52 d, 95%CI, -1.61 to 2.64; p = 0.63). The adverse effects of Alfuzosin were similar to those of Tamsulosin (RR: 0.88; 95% CI, 0.61–1.26; p = 0.47).ConclusionsAlfuzosin is a safe and effective agent for the expulsive therapy of ureteral stones smaller than 10 mm in size. It is more effective than therapeutic regiment without alpha blocker. It is equivalent to Tamsulosin in its effectiveness and safety profile. Adverse effects should always be kept in mind when use this class of drugs.

Calcium channel blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones

Calcium channel blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones

Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones

Urinary stone disease is one of the most common reasons for patients visiting a urology practice, affecting about 5% to 10% of the population. Annual costs for stone disease have rapidly increased over the years and most patients with ureteral colic or other symptoms seek medical care. Stone size and location are important predictors of stone passage. In most cases medical expulsive therapy is an appropriate treatment modality and most studies have been performed with alpha-blockers. Alpha-blockers tend to decrease intra-ureteral pressure and increase fluid passage which might increase stone passage. Faster stone expulsion will decrease the rate of complications, the need for invasive interventions and eventually decrease healthcare costs. A study on the effect of alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy in ureteral stones is therefore warranted. This review aimed to answer the following question: does medical treatment with alpha-blockers compared to other pharmacotherapy or placebo impact on stone clearance rate, in adult patients presenting with symptoms of ureteral stones less than 10 mm confirmed by imaging? Other clinically relevant outcomes such as stone expulsion time, hospitalisation, pain scores, analgesic use and adverse effects have also been explored. We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 9 July 2012 through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, handsearching conference proceedings, and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing alpha-blockers with other pharmacotherapy or placebo on ureteral stone passage in adult patients were included. Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Reporting bias was investigated using funnel plots. Subgroup analysis was used to explore possible sources of heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was performed removing studies of poor methodological quality. Thirty-two studies (5864 participants) were included. The stone-free rates were significantly higher in the alpha-blocker group (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.64) when compared to standard therapy. Stone expulsion time was 2.91 days shorter with the use of alpha-blockers (MD -2.91, 95% CI -4.00 to -1.81). Use of alpha-blockers reduced the number of pain episodes (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.01), the need for analgesic medication (diclofenac) (MD -38.17 mg, 95% CI -74.93 to -1.41) and hospitalisation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.97). Patients using alpha-blockers were more likely to experience adverse effects when compared to standard therapy (RR 2.74, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.45) or placebo (RR 2.73, 95% CI 1.50 to 4.96). Most adverse effects were mild of origin and did not lead to cessation of therapy, and several studies reported no adverse events in either the treatment or control group.In 7/32 studies patients and doctors were both blinded. In the other studies blinding was not described in the methods or no blinding had taken place. Two studies described incomplete data and only one study showed a relatively high number of patients who withdrew from the study. These factors limited the methodological strength of the evidence found. The use of alpha-blockers in patients with ureteral stones results in a higher stone-free rate and a shorter time to stone expulsion. Alpha-blockers should therefore be offered as part of medical expulsive therapy as one of the primary treatment modalities.