A Systematic Review of the Evidence for Non-surgical Weight Management for Adults with Severe Obesity: What is Cost Effective and What are the Implications for the Design of Health Services?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Severe obesity (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2) increases premature mortality and reduces quality-of-life. Obesity-related disease (ORD) places substantial burden on health systems. This review summarises the cost-effectiveness evidence for non-surgical weight management programmes (WMPs) for adults with severe obesity. RECENT FINDINGS: Whilst evidence shows bariatric surgery is often cost-effective, there is no clear consensus on the cost-effectiveness of non-surgical WMPs. Thirty-two studies were included. Most were short-term evaluations that did not capture the long-term costs and consequences of ORD. Decision models often included only a subset of relevant ORDs, and made varying assumptions about the rate of weight regain over time. A lack of sensitivity analyses limited interpretation of results. Heterogeneity in the definition of WMPs and usual care prevents formal evidence synthesis. We were unable to establish the most cost-effective WMPs. Addressing these limitations may help future studies provide more robust cost-effectiveness evidence for decision makers.

Pulpotomy for the Management of Irreversible Pulpitis in Mature Teeth (PIP): a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Progression of dental caries can result in irreversible pulpal damage. Partial irreversible pulpitis is the initial stage of this damage, confined to the coronal pulp whilst the radicular pulp shows little or no sign of infection. Preserving the pulp with sustained vitality and developing minimally invasive biologically based therapies are key themes within contemporary clinical practice. However, root canal treatment involving complete removal of the pulp is often the only option (other than extraction) given to patients with irreversible pulpitis, with substantial NHS and patient incurred costs. The European Society of Endodontology's (ESE 2019) recent consensus statement recommends full pulpotomy, where the inflamed coronal pulp is removed with the goal of keeping the radicular pulp vital, as a more minimally invasive technique, potentially avoiding complex root canal treatment. Although this technique may be provided in secondary care, it has not been routinely implemented or evaluated in UK General Dental Practice. METHOD: This feasibility study aims to identify and assess in a primary care setting the training needs of general dental practitioners and clinical fidelity of the full pulpotomy intervention, estimate likely eligible patient pool and develop recruitment materials ahead of the main randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of full pulpotomy compared to root canal treatment in pre/molar teeth of adults 16 years and older showing signs indicative of irreversible pulpitis. The feasibility study will recruit and train 10 primary care dentists in the full pulpotomy technique. Dentists will recruit and provide full pulpotomy to 40 participants (four per practice) with indications of partial irreversible pulpitis. DISCUSSION: The Pulpotomy for the Management of Irreversible Pulpitis in Mature Teeth (PIP) study will address the lack of high-quality evidence in the treatment of irreversible pulpitis, to aid dental practitioners, patients and policymakers in their decision-making. The PIP feasibility study will inform the main study on the practicality of providing both training and provision of the full pulpotomy technique in general dental practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN17973604 . Registered on 28 January 2021. Protocol version Protocol version: 1; date: 03.02.2021.

Biomarkers for assessing acute kidney injury for people who are being considered for admission to critical care: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury is a serious complication that occurs in the context of an acute critical illness or during a postoperative period. Earlier detection of acute kidney injury may facilitate strategies to preserve renal function, prevent further disease progression and reduce mortality. Acute kidney injury diagnosis relies on a rise in serum creatinine levels and/or fall in urine output; however, creatinine is an imperfect marker of kidney function. There is interest in the performance of novel biomarkers used in conjunction with existing clinical assessment, such as NephroCheck® (Astute Medical, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA), ARCHITECT® urine neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA), and urine and plasma BioPorto NGAL (BioPorto Diagnostics A/S, Hellerup, Denmark) immunoassays. If reliable, these biomarkers may enable earlier identification of acute kidney injury and enhance management of those with a modifiable disease course. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to evaluate the role of biomarkers for assessing acute kidney injury in critically ill patients who are considered for admission to critical care. DATA SOURCES: Major electronic databases, conference abstracts and ongoing studies were searched up to June 2019, with no date restrictions. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Health Technology Assessment Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, World Health Organization Global Index Medicus, EU Clinical Trials Register, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate the performance of novel biomarkers for the detection of acute kidney injury and prediction of other relevant clinical outcomes. Random-effects models were adopted to combine evidence. A decision tree was developed to evaluate costs and quality-adjusted life-years accrued as a result of changes in short-term outcomes (up to 90 days), and a Markov model was used to extrapolate results over a lifetime time horizon. RESULTS: A total of 56 studies (17,967 participants), mainly prospective cohort studies, were selected for inclusion. No studies addressing the clinical impact of the use of biomarkers on patient outcomes, compared with standard care, were identified. The main sources of bias across studies were a lack of information on blinding and the optimal threshold for NGAL. For prediction studies, the reporting of statistical details was limited. Although the meta-analyses results showed the potential ability of these biomarkers to detect and predict acute kidney injury, there were limited data to establish any causal link with longer-term health outcomes and there were considerable clinical differences across studies. Cost-effectiveness results were highly uncertain, largely speculative and should be interpreted with caution in the light of the limited evidence base. To illustrate the current uncertainty, 15 scenario analyses were undertaken. Incremental quality-adjusted life-years were very low across all scenarios, ranging from positive to negative increments. Incremental costs were also small, in general, with some scenarios generating cost savings with tests dominant over standard care (cost savings with quality-adjusted life-year gains). However, other scenarios generated results whereby the candidate tests were more costly with fewer quality-adjusted life-years, and were thus dominated by standard care. Therefore, it was not possible to determine a plausible base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the tests, compared with standard care. LIMITATIONS: Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness results were hampered by the considerable heterogeneity across identified studies. Economic model predictions should also be interpreted cautiously because of the unknown impact of NGAL-guided treatment, and uncertain causal links between changes in acute kidney injury status and changes in health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence is insufficient to make a full appraisal of the role and economic value of these biomarkers and to determine whether or not they provide cost-effective improvements in the clinical outcomes of acute kidney injury patients. FUTURE WORK: Future studies should evaluate the targeted use of biomarkers among specific patient populations and the clinical impact of their routine use on patient outcomes and management. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019147039. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Among people who are very ill or have undergone surgery, the kidneys may suddenly stop working properly. This is known as acute kidney injury. Acute kidney injury can progress to serious kidney problems and can be fatal. Currently, to decide whether or not acute kidney injury is present, doctors use the level of creatinine (a waste product filtered by the kidneys) in the blood or urine. However, creatinine levels are not a precise indicator and they can take hours or days to rise; this may lead to delays in acute kidney injury recognition. Novel biomarkers may help doctors to recognise the presence of acute kidney injury earlier and treat patients promptly. This work evaluates current evidence on the use of biomarkers for acute kidney injury with respect to clinical usefulness and costs. We reviewed the current evidence on the use of biomarkers for assessing the risk of acute kidney injury among people who are very ill, and assessed whether or not the evidence was of good value for the NHS. We assessed the ARCHITECT^® urine neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA), urine and plasma BioPorto NGAL (BioPorto Diagnostics A/S, Hellerup, Denmark) and urine NephroCheck^® (Astute Medical, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) biomarkers. We checked studies published up to June 2019 and found 56 relevant studies (17,967 patients). Most studies were conducted outside the UK and investigated people already admitted to critical care. We combined the results of the studies and found that NephroCheck and NGAL biomarkers might be useful in identifying acute kidney injury or pre-empting acute kidney injury in some circumstances. However, studies differed in patient characteristics, clinical setting and the way in which biomarkers were used. This could explain why the number of people correctly identified and missed by the biomarkers varied across studies. Hence, we do not completely trust the pooled results. We also found that acute kidney injury is associated with substantial costs for the NHS, but there was insufficient good-quality evidence to decide which biomarker (if any) offered the best value for money.

Cost-effectiveness and value of information analysis of NephroCheck and NGAL tests compared to standard care for the diagnosis of acute kidney injury.

BACKGROUND: Early and accurate acute kidney injury (AKI) detection may improve patient outcomes and reduce health service costs. This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of NephroCheck and NGAL (urine and plasma) biomarker tests used alongside standard care, compared with standard care to detect AKI in hospitalised UK adults. METHODS: A 90-day decision tree and lifetime Markov cohort model predicted costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from a UK NHS perspective. Test accuracy was informed by a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Clinical trial and observational data informed the link between AKI and health outcomes, health state probabilities, costs and utilities. Value of information (VOI) analysis informed future research priorities. RESULTS: Under base case assumptions, the biomarker tests were not cost-effective with ICERs of £105,965 (NephroCheck), £539,041 (NGAL urine BioPorto), £633,846 (NGAL plasma BioPorto) and £725,061 (NGAL urine ARCHITECT) per QALY gained compared to standard care. Results were uncertain, due to limited trial data, with probabilities of cost-effectiveness at £20,000 per QALY ranging from 0 to 99% and 0 to 56% for NephroCheck and NGAL tests respectively. The expected value of perfect information (EVPI) was £66 M, which demonstrated that additional research to resolve decision uncertainty is worthwhile. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence is inadequate to support the cost-effectiveness of general use of biomarker tests. Future research evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of test guided implementation of protective care bundles is necessary. Improving the evidence base around the impact of tests on AKI staging, and of AKI staging on clinical outcomes would have the greatest impact on reducing decision uncertainty.

Cost-effectiveness and value of information analysis of multiple frequency bioimpedance devices for fluid management in people with chronic kidney disease having dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Among people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) on dialysis, sub-optimal fluid management has been linked with hospitalisation, cardiovascular complications and death. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness using multiple-frequency bioimpedance guided fluid management versus standard fluid management based on clinical judgment. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to compare expected costs, outcomes and quality adjusted life years of the alternative management strategies. The relative effectiveness of the bioimpedance guided approach was informed by a systematic review of clinical trials, and focussed reviews were conducted to identify baseline event rates, costs and health state utility values for application in the model. The model was analysed probabilistically and a value of information (VOI) analysis was conducted to inform the value of conducting further research to reduce current uncertainties in the evidence base. RESULTS: For the base-case analysis, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for bioimpedance guided fluid management versus standard management was £16,536 per QALY gained. There was a 59% chance of the ICER being below £20,000 per QALY. Form the VOI analysis, the theoretical upper bound on the value of further research was £53 million. The value of further research was highest for parameters relating to the relative effectiveness of bioimpedance guided management on final health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple frequency bioimpedance testing may offer a cost-effective approach to improve fluid management in patients with CKD on dialysis, but further research would be of value to reduce the current uncertainties.

Oral splints for temporomandibular disorder or bruxism: a systematic review.

Objectives To evaluate the clinical-effectiveness of oral splints for patients with TMD or bruxism for the primary outcomes: pain (TMD) and tooth wear (bruxism).Data sources Four databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from inception until 1 October 2018.Data selection and extraction Randomised controlled trials comparing all types of splints versus no/minimal treatment for patients with TMD or bruxism were eligible. Standard Cochrane review methods were used. Standardised mean differences (SMD) were pooled for the primary outcome of pain, using random effects models in TMD patients.Data synthesis Thirty-seven trials were included and the evidence identified was of very low certainty using GRADE assessments. When all subtypes of TMD were pooled into one global TMD group, there was no evidence that splints reduced pain: SMD (up to 3 months) -0.18 (95% CI -0.42 to 0.06); 13 trials, 1,076 participants. There was no evidence that any other outcomes improved when using splints. There was no evidence of adverse events associated with splints, but reporting was poor regarding this outcome. No trials measured tooth wear in patients with bruxism. There was a large variation in diagnostic criteria, splint types and outcome measures used and reported. Sensitivity analyses based on these factors did not indicate a reduction in pain.Conclusions The very low-certainty evidence identified did not demonstrate that splints reduced pain in TMD as a group of conditions. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether splints reduce tooth wear in patients with bruxism.

Oral splints for patients with temporomandibular disorders or bruxism: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Splints are a non-invasive, reversible management option for temporomandibular disorders or bruxism. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of splints remain uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of splints for patients with temporomandibular disorders or bruxism. This evidence synthesis compared (1) all types of splint versus no/minimal treatment/control splints and (2) prefabricated versus custom-made splints, for the primary outcomes, which were pain (temporomandibular disorders) and tooth wear (bruxism). REVIEW METHODS: Four databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched from inception until 1 October 2018 for randomised clinical trials. The searches were conducted on 1 October 2018. Cochrane review methods (including risk of bias) were used for the systematic review. Standardised mean differences were pooled for the primary outcome of pain, using random-effects models in temporomandibular disorder patients. A Markov cohort, state-transition model, populated using current pain and Characteristic Pain Intensity data, was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for splints compared with no splint, from an NHS perspective over a lifetime horizon. A value-of-information analysis identified future research priorities. RESULTS: Fifty-two trials were included in the systematic review. The evidence identified was of very low quality with unclear reporting by temporomandibular disorder subtype. When all subtypes were pooled into one global temporomandibular disorder group, there was no evidence that splints reduced pain [standardised mean difference (at up to 3 months) -0.18, 95% confidence interval -0.42 to 0.06; substantial heterogeneity] when compared with no splints or a minimal intervention. There was no evidence that other outcomes, including temporomandibular joint noises, decreased mouth-opening, and quality of life, improved when using splints. Adverse events were generally not reported, but seemed infrequent when reported. The most plausible base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was uncertain and driven by the lack of clinical effectiveness evidence. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed splints becoming more cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of ≈£6000, but the probability never exceeded 60% at higher levels of willingness to pay. Results were sensitive to longer-term extrapolation assumptions. A value-of-information analysis indicated that further research is required. There were no studies measuring tooth wear in patients with bruxism. One small study looked at pain and found a reduction in the splint group [mean difference (0-10 scale) -2.01, 95% CI -1.40 to -2.62; very low-quality evidence]. As there was no evidence of a difference between splints and no splints, the second objective became irrelevant. LIMITATIONS: There was a large variation in the diagnostic criteria, splint types and outcome measures used and reported. Sensitivity analyses based on these limitations did not indicate a reduction in pain. CONCLUSIONS: The very low-quality evidence identified did not demonstrate that splints reduced pain in temporomandibular disorders as a group of conditions. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not splints reduce tooth wear in patients with bruxism. There remains substantial uncertainty surrounding the most plausible incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. FUTURE WORK: There is a need for well-conducted trials to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of splints in patients with carefully diagnosed and subtyped temporomandibular disorders, and patients with bruxism, using agreed measures of pain and tooth wear. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068512. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Treatment options for people experiencing temporomandibular disorders (pain and/or restricted movement in and around the jaw joint) include splints, which are removable appliances, often similar to a mouthguard. They are provided to patients to help ease pain in the mouth, face or jaws. They are also used to manage the symptoms of temporomandibular disorders, such as frequent headaches/migraines, clicking jaws, restricted mouth-opening or tooth wear from the grinding of teeth (bruxism). There are many types of splints. This research looked at the evidence addressing the primary question of whether or not splints work (regardless of type of splint) in reducing the pain associated with temporomandibular disorders and/or tooth wear, and if they offered value for money. Patients were involved in the research to ensure that the question and the outcomes that were measured were appropriate. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to find all randomised controlled trials including patients with temporomandibular disorders or bruxism. Online databases of research publications were searched, and these searches were checked, to identify relevant trials. All stages of the review process were undertaken to the highest standards by two people, independently and in duplicate, using well-respected and recognised Cochrane methods. We conducted a value-for-money assessment, comparing the trial data with the costs of splints to see if splints are a cost-effective use of NHS funding. There was no evidence that splints reduced pain when compared with not wearing a splint or when compared with a minimal treatment (like jaw exercises, advice or education) in patients with temporomandibular disorders. The evidence was assessed as being of very low quality; therefore, it remains unclear whether or not splints are good value for money, or if they should be paid for by the NHS. This research showed that more well-conducted trials on temporomandibular disorder patients are needed.

Challenges of Systematic Reviews of Economic Evaluations: A Review of Recent Reviews and an Obesity Case Study.

Decision makers increasingly require cost-effectiveness evidence to inform resource allocation and the need for systematic reviews of economic evaluations (SREEs) has grown accordingly. The objective of this article is to describe current practice and identify unique challenges in conducting and reporting SREEs. Current guideline documents for SREEs were consulted and summarised. A rapid review of English-language SREEs, using MEDLINE and EMBASE, published in 2017/2018, containing at least 20 studies was undertaken to describe current practice. Information on data extraction methods, quality assessment (QA) tools and reporting methods were narratively summarised. Lessons learned from a recently conducted SREE of weight loss interventions for severely obese adults were discussed. Sixty-three publications were included in the rapid review. Substantial heterogeneity in review methods, reporting standards and QA approaches was evident. Our recently conducted SREE on weight loss interventions identified scope to improve process efficiency, opportunity for more transparent and succinct reporting, and potential to improve consistency of QA. Practical solutions may include (1) using pre-piloted data extraction forms linked explicitly to results tables; (2) consistently reporting on key assumptions and sensitivity analyses that drive results; and (3) using checklists that include topic-specific items where relevant and allow reviewers to distinguish between reporting, justification and QA. The lack of a mutually agreed, standardised set of best practice guidelines has led to substantial heterogeneity in the conduct and reporting of SREEs. Future work is required to standardise the approach to conducting SREEs so that they can generate efficient, timely and relevant evidence to support decision-making. We suggest only data extracting information that will be reported, focusing discussion around the key drivers of cost-effectiveness, and improving consistency in QA by distinguishing between what is reported, justified by authors and deemed appropriate by the reviewer.

Bariatric surgery, lifestyle interventions and orlistat for severe obesity: the REBALANCE mixed-methods systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Adults with severe obesity [body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 35 kg/m2] have an increased risk of comorbidities and psychological, social and economic consequences. OBJECTIVES: Systematically review bariatric surgery, weight-management programmes (WMPs) and orlistat pharmacotherapy for adults with severe obesity, and evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatment. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database were searched (last searched in May 2017). REVIEW METHODS: Four systematic reviews evaluated clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and qualitative evidence for adults with a BMI of ≥ 35 kg/m2. Data from meta-analyses populated a microsimulation model predicting costs, outcomes and cost-effectiveness of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery and the most effective lifestyle WMPs over a 30-year time horizon from a NHS perspective, compared with current UK population obesity trends. Interventions were cost-effective if the additional cost of achieving a quality-adjusted life-year is < £20,000-30,000. RESULTS: A total of 131 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 26 UK studies, 33 qualitative studies and 46 cost-effectiveness studies were included. From RCTs, RYGB produced the greatest long-term weight change [-20.23 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -23.75 to -16.71 kg, at 60 months]. WMPs with very low-calorie diets (VLCDs) produced the greatest weight loss at 12 months compared with no WMPs. Adding a VLCD to a WMP gave an additional mean weight change of -4.41 kg (95% CI -5.93 to -2.88 kg) at 12 months. The intensive Look AHEAD WMP produced mean long-term weight loss of 6% in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (at a median of 9.6 years). The microsimulation model found that WMPs were generally cost-effective compared with population obesity trends. Long-term WMP weight regain was very uncertain, apart from Look AHEAD. The addition of a VLCD to a WMP was not cost-effective compared with a WMP alone. RYGB was cost-effective compared with no surgery and WMPs, but the model did not replicate long-term cost savings found in previous studies. Qualitative data suggested that participants could be attracted to take part in WMPs through endorsement by their health-care provider or through perceiving innovative activities, with WMPs being delivered to groups. Features improving long-term weight loss included having group support, additional behavioural support, a physical activity programme to attend, a prescribed calorie diet or a calorie deficit. LIMITATIONS: Reviewed studies often lacked generalisability to UK settings in terms of participants and resources for implementation, and usually lacked long-term follow-up (particularly for complications for surgery), leading to unrealistic weight regain assumptions. The views of potential and actual users of services were rarely reported to contribute to service design. This study may have failed to identify unpublished UK evaluations. Dual, blinded numerical data extraction was not undertaken. CONCLUSIONS: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was costly to deliver, but it was the most cost-effective intervention. Adding a VLCD to a WMP was not cost-effective compared with a WMP alone. Most WMPs were cost-effective compared with current population obesity trends. FUTURE WORK: Improved reporting of WMPs is needed to allow replication, translation and further research. Qualitative research is needed with adults who are potential users of, or who fail to engage with or drop out from, WMPs. RCTs and economic evaluations in UK settings (e.g. Tier 3, commercial programmes or primary care) should evaluate VLCDs with long-term follow-up (≥ 5 years). Decision models should incorporate relevant costs, disease states and evidence-based weight regain assumptions. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016040190. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. The Health Services Research Unit and Health Economics Research Unit are core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate.

Multiple-frequency bioimpedance devices for fluid management in people with chronic kidney disease receiving dialysis: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a long-term condition requiring treatment such as conservative management, kidney transplantation or dialysis. To optimise the volume of fluid removed during dialysis (to avoid underhydration or overhydration), people are assigned a 'target weight', which is commonly assessed using clinical methods, such as weight gain between dialysis sessions, pre- and post-dialysis blood pressure and patient-reported symptoms. However, these methods are not precise, and measurement devices based on bioimpedance technology are increasingly used in dialysis centres. Current evidence on the role of bioimpedance devices for fluid management in people with CKD receiving dialysis is limited. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multiple-frequency bioimpedance devices versus standard clinical assessment for fluid management in people with CKD receiving dialysis. DATA SOURCES: We searched major electronic databases [e.g. MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)] conference abstracts and ongoing studies. There were no date restrictions. Searches were undertaken between June and October 2016. REVIEW METHODS: Evidence was considered from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fluid management by multiple-frequency bioimpedance devices and standard clinical assessment in people receiving dialysis, and non-randomised studies evaluating the use of the devices for fluid management in people receiving dialysis. One reviewer extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. A second reviewer cross-checked the extracted data. Standard meta-analyses techniques were used to combine results from included studies. A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. RESULTS: Five RCTs (with 904 adult participants) and eight non-randomised studies (with 4915 adult participants) assessing the use of the Body Composition Monitor [(BCM) Fresenius Medical Care, Bad Homburg vor der Höhe, Germany] were included. Both absolute overhydration and relative overhydration were significantly lower in patients evaluated using BCM measurements than for those evaluated using standard clinical methods [weighted mean difference -0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to -0.15, p = 0.003, I2 = 49%; and weighted mean difference -1.84, 95% CI -3.65 to -0.03; p = 0.05, I2 = 52%, respectively]. Pooled effects of bioimpedance monitoring on systolic blood pressure (SBP) (mean difference -2.46 mmHg, 95% CI -5.07 to 0.15 mmHg; p = 0.06, I2 = 0%), arterial stiffness (mean difference -1.18, 95% CI -3.14 to 0.78; p = 0.24, I2 = 92%) and mortality (hazard ratio = 0.689, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.08; p = 0.51) were not statistically significant. The economic evaluation showed that, when dialysis costs were included in the model, the probability of bioimpedance monitoring being cost-effective ranged from 13% to 26% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. With dialysis costs excluded, the corresponding probabilities of cost-effectiveness ranged from 61% to 67%. LIMITATIONS: Lack of evidence on clinically relevant outcomes, children receiving dialysis, and any multifrequency bioimpedance devices, other than the BCM. CONCLUSIONS: BCM used in addition to clinical assessment may lower overhydration and potentially improve intermediate outcomes, such as SBP, but effects on mortality have not been demonstrated. If dialysis costs are not considered, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio falls below £20,000, with modest effects on mortality and/or hospitalisation rates. The current findings are not generalisable to paediatric populations nor across other multifrequency bioimpedance devices. FUTURE WORK: Services that routinely use the BCM should report clinically relevant intermediate and long-term outcomes before and after introduction of the device to extend the current evidence base. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041785. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.