Table 2 Summary of cohorts reporting multivariate analyses with a stated hazard ratio, (HR) risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence intervals, (CI) lower limit (LL) and upper limit (UL).

From: Bioimpedance-defined overhydration predicts survival in end stage kidney failure (ESKF): systematic review and subgroup meta-analysis

Author(s) Year MVA Type Mortality Censored BIA Marker BIA Marker MVA HR/OR for BIA 95% CI LL 95% CI UL Reason for exclusion from MA
End-stage Kidney Failure Cohorts
Demirci 2016 Cox analysis 93 Y1,2,3 BIVA Impedance ratio HR = 1.13 1.04 1.23 Only study using impedance ratio for BIVA analysis.
Pillon/Chertow 2004 Unclear MVA 361 Y2,3,4,5 BIVA MVA using vector length (per 100ohm/m change) RR = 0.75 0.57 0.88 Only 1 study using this BIA method
Chen 2007 Cox analysis 58 Y1,2,3 ECW Ratio ECW/ICW - for every increase by 0.1 (time dependent) RR = 1.37 1.1 1.7 Only study expressing continuous ECW/ICW variable in 0.1 increments.
Fan 2015 Cox analysis 37 N ECW Ratio ECW as an absolute value (in litres) HR = 2.98 1.4 7.3 Only study expressing ECW as absolute volume.
Kim 2017 Cox analysis 24 Y2 ECW Ratio ECW/ICW - for every increase by 0.01 HR = 1.12 1.01 1.25 Only study expressing continuous ECW/ICW variable in 0.01 increments.
Paniagua 2010 Cox analysis 182 N ECW Ratio ECW/TBW as continuous variable in CV mortality OR = 1171.33 3.35 409899.37 Only study expressing ECW/TBW as continuous variable (expressed per unit ratio)
Rhee 2015 Cox analysis 15 N ECW Ratio ECW/TBW > Median HR = 1.001 1.001 1.086 Only study expressing ECW/TBW > median
Guo/Guo 2015 Cox analysis 52 Y1,2,3,4 ECW Ratio ECW/TBW > 0.4 HR = 13.12 1.35 128 Only study expressing ECW/TBW > 0.4 as cut off
Tian 2016 Cox analysis 44 N ECW Ratio ECW Ratio > 1 standard deviation from expected HR = 2.20 0.79 6.08 Only study expressing ECW ratio > 1 standard deviation from expected
O’Lone 2014 Cox analysis 95 N ECW Ratio+OH Index Two markers: OH/ECW and ECW/TBW (highest 30% each) HR 2.09 (1.36, 3.20)/HR 2.05 (1.31, 3.22)    Only study expressing both indices with 30% highest decile cut off
Caetano* 2016 Cox analysis 66 Y1,2 OH Index OH/ECW > 15% HR = 2.22 1.29 3.79 More than 1 study measuring OHI > 15%
Chazot* 2012 Cox analysis Unclear Y2,4 OH Index OHI > 15% (dHS/ECW) HR = 3.41 1.62 7.17 More than 1 study measuring OHI > 15%
Dekker* 2017 Cox analysis Unclear Y1,2.3,4 OH Index OHI/ECW > 15% (overhydration 2.5–5L) HR = 2.62 2.1 3.3 More than 1 study measuring OHI > 15%
Hoppe 2015 MLR Unclear N OH Index Continuous variable OR = 1.12 0.92 1.37 Only study expressing OHI as continuous variable in MLR
Huan-Sheng 2016 Cox analysis 13 N OH Index Absolute OH; BIA-defined protocol linked with episodes of absolute fluid overload to determine management     RCT - testing an intervention vs. control, non comparable design.
Jotterand-Drepper* 2016 Cox analysis 19 Y1,2,3 OH Index OHI/ECW > 15% HR = 7.82 1.1 29.07 More than 1 study measuring OHI > 15%
Kim* 2015 Cox analysis 50 Y2 OH Index OH/ECW > 15% HR = 2.58 1.16 5.75 More than 1 study measuring OHI > 15%
Mathew 2015 MLR 41 Y2,3 OH Index Absolute OH > Median (3.1L) OR = 2.96 1.04 8.46 Only study expressing OHI > median
Onofriescu 2014 Cox analysis 9 Y2,3 OH Index OH/ECW > 15% used to define BIA-defined overhydration in RCT of BIA-driven vs standard care.     RCT - testing an intervention vs. control, non comparable design.
Onofriescu* 2015 Cox analysis 66 Y1,2,3,4 OH Index RFO (OH/ECW) > 15% and  > 17.4% 15%: HR 1.87 1.12 3.13 More than 1 study measuring OHI > 15%
Siriopol/Siriopol 2015 Cox analysis 31 Y1,2,4 OH Index OH/ECW > 6.68% HR = 2.93 1.3 6.58 Only study expressing OHI > 6.68%
Siriopol 2017 Cox analysis 89 Y1,2,4 OH Index OH/ECW > 6.9% HR = 1.34 0.67 2.68 Only study expressing OHI > 6.9%
Tangvorap-honkchai 2016 Cox analysis 110 N OH Index OH as a continuous variable HR = 1.15 1.03 1.28 Only study expressing OHI as a continuous variable in Cox regression.
Wizemann* 2009 Cox analysis 86 Y2,4 OH Index OH/ECW > 15% HR = 2.10 1.39 3.18 More than 1 study measuring OHI > 15%
Zoccali* 2017 Cox analysis 5866 N OH Index OH/ECW > 15% in males and > 13% in females HR = 1.26 1.19 1.33 More than 1 study measuring OHI > 15%
Bebera-shvili** 2014 Cox analysis 38 N PA 1 degree increase PA (time varying risk) HR = 0.61 0.53 0.71 More than 1 study expressing PA as continuous variable
Bebera-shvili** 2014 Cox analysis 64 Y2,3 PA PA - continuous variable in MVA HR = 0.72 0.54 0.96 More than 1 study expressing PA as continuous variable
Fiedler 2009 Cox analysis 36 Y2 PA PA < 4 HR = 2.34 1.O6 5.14 Only study expressing PA < 4
Koh** 2011 Cox analysis 35 N PA PA - continuous variable in MVA HR = 0.39 0.27 0.57 More than 1 study expressing PA as continuous variable
Segall/Segall 2014 Cox analysis 11 N PA PA < 5.58 HR = 2.15 1.16 3.99 Only study expressing PA < 5.58
Shin** 2017 Cox analysis 15 N PA PA - continuous variable in MVA HR = 0.56 0.33 0.97 More than 1 study expressing PA as continuous variable
de Araujo 2013 Cox analysis 13 Y1,2,4,6 PA+ECW Ratio Stratified for diabetic status - PA predictive in nonDM/not predictive in DM     Stratified for diabetic status with two separate analyses
Heart Failure Cohorts
Trejo-Velasco 2016 Cox analysis 19 N BIVA BIVA Hyperhydration (defined as > 74.3%) HR = 2.60 1.10 6.40 Only study expressing BIVA
Sakaguchi 2015 Cox analysis 37 N ECW Ratio ECW Ratio (measured/predicted) HR = 1.48 1.20 1.83 Only study expressing ECW ratio (measured/predicted)
Alves 2016 Cox analysis 34 N PA PA < 4.8 HR = 2.67 1.21 5.89 Only study expressing PA < 4.8
Colin-Ramirez 2012 Cox analysis 66 N PA PA < 4.2 HR = 3.08 1.06 8.99 Only study expressing PA < 4.2
  1. Authors highlighted with * or ** had their studies included within the final subgroup meta-analysis. Censoring, where used within MVSA, are stated, with reasons including: Transfer to another RRT modality (1), transplantation (2), loss to follow up (3), transfer to another dialysis facility (4), withdrawal from RRT (5) or, in the case of one paper death due to non-cardiovascular cause (6).