Objective To evaluate the value of Ureteral Stent Placement before Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL). Methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 4, 2010), MEDLINE (OVID 1950 to April 2010), EMbase (1979 to April 2010), CBM (1978 to April 2010), CNKI (1979 to April 2010), and VIP (1989 to April 2010), and manually searched journals as well. All the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of treating ureteral stone with ESWL after stent placement were included. We evaluated the risk of the bias of the included RCTs according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration’s software RevMan 5.0 was used for meta-analysis. Results Three RCTs with C-level evidence involving 319 ureteral stone patients were identified. The results of meta-analyses showed that: a) Effect of treatment: The ureteral stent placement before ESWL did not take better effects in aspects of the complete clearance rate (WMD= 1.10, 95%CI 0.87 to 1.38), the quantity of lithotripsy (WMD= 0.43, 95%CI – 1.05 to 0.19), the frequency of shock wave (WMD= 0.00, 95%CI – 0.25 to 0.25), and the power of shock wave (WMD= 0.20, 95%CI – 0.05 to 0.46); and b) Postoperative complications: The ureteral stent placement were prone to cause dysuria (RR= 2.30, 95%CI 1.62 to 3.26), microscopic hematuria (RR= 2.66, 95%CI 1.97 to 3.58), gross hematuria (RR= 6.50, 95%CI 1.50 to 28.15), pyuria (RR= 1.78, 95%CI 1.44 to 2.21), positive urine culture (RR= 2.13, 95%CI 1.71 to 2.64), and suprapubic pain (RR= 3.10, 95%CI 1.59 to 6.04). Conclusions Ureteral stent placement before ESWL is inadvisable. Multi-factors which lead to bias affected the authenticity of our review, such as low-quality and small amount of RCTs. Further large-scale trials are required.