Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41509089›Full record

ReviewArab journal of urology2026

Efficacy of alpha-blockers in medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials between 2010 and 2025.

Mohammed Marzouq Almaghthawi, Eman Abdullah Alotaibi, Mohammed Saad Alotaibi, Renad Wesam Alomari, Yazeed Dakhel Alsulami, Manar Ali Alahamdi, Salem Ibrahim S Aljaddua, Wijdan Ateeq Allah Alruhaili, Eyad Mohammed Hijazi, Abdullah Sulaiman Alkharboosh and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Arab journal of urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Mohammed Marzouq AlmaghthawiCollege of Medicine, Qassim University, Unayzah city, Al-Mulaida, Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-1086-1671
Eman Abdullah AlotaibiDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, College of Medicine, Qassim University, Unayzah city, Al-Mulaida, Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4620-0725
Mohammed Saad AlotaibiCollege of Pharmacy, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah Al-Mukarramah, Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-1484-727X
Renad Wesam AlomariCollege of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Yazeed Dakhel AlsulamiCollege of Pharmacy, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah Al-Mukarramah, Saudi Arabia.
Manar Ali AlahamdiCollege of Pharmacy, Taibah University, Al Madinah Al Munawwarah, Saudi Arabia.
Salem Ibrahim S AljadduaCollege of Medicine, Jouf University, Al-Jouf, Saudi Arabia.
Wijdan Ateeq Allah AlruhailiCollege of Medicine, Taibah University, Al Madinah Al Munawwarah, Saudi Arabia.
Eyad Mohammed HijaziCollege of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Abdullah Sulaiman AlkharbooshCollege of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Oroub Abdulaziz AlmurshedCollege of Medicine, Qassim University, Al-Qassim, Saudi Arabia.
Adel H AlshammariGeneral Practice, Hafar albatin Cluster, MCH, Hafar Alnatin, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Alpha-blockers are widely used in medical expulsive therapy (MET) for ureteral stones; however, the current evidence regarding their comparative effectiveness remains inconsistent. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different alpha-blockers in facilitating ureteral stone passage and identify factors influencing treatment outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2010 and 2025. We searched multiple databases for studies comparing alpha-blockers with control interventions or other alpha-blockers for ureteral stones ≤10 mm. Primary outcome was stone expulsion rate; secondary outcomes included time to expulsion, pain episodes, analgesic use, and adverse events. We performed subgroup analyses by alpha-blocker type, stone size, location, and treatment duration. Network meta-analysis assessed comparative effectiveness between agents. Results: Twenty-nine RCTs with a total of 4,256 patients were included. Alpha-blockers significantly increased stone expulsion rates compared to controls (70.9% vs. 56.5%; RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.20-1.32; Number Needed to Treat (NNT) = 7) and reduced expulsion time by approximately three-days. Efficacy was greatest for distal ureteral stones (RR 1.52; Number Needed to Treat (NNT) = 4) and stones 5-10 mm (RR 1.35; NNT = 6). Network meta-analysis revealed efficacy ranking favoring at first terazosin, followed by doxazosin then, silodosin then, tamsulosin then, alfuzosin and last the least effective was naftopidil. Alpha-blockers significantly reduced pain episodes and analgesic requirements. Adverse events were infrequent (Number Needed to Harm (NNH) = 38), with retrograde ejaculation being most common with silodosin. Conclusion: Alpha-blockers significantly improve the stone expulsion rates and reduce expulsion time, especially for distal ureteral stones 5-10 mm in size. While tamsulosin remains the most studied agent, our network meta-analysis suggests terazosin and doxazosin may offer superior efficacy. The favorable risk-benefit profile supports routine use of alpha-blockers for appropriately selected patients with ureteral stones.

Indexed as

Alpha-blockersmedical expulsive therapyterazosinureteral stonesurolithiasis

Identifiers

PMID41509089
PMCPMC12777816

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.