Coles 1997.

Methods	Study design: parallel RCT Study duration: not reported Follow‐up period: 2 months, with optional 4 month extension period
Participants	Countries: UK, Italy Setting: multicentre (5) Prevalent adult patients on CAPD for at least 3 months; receiving Dianeal PD4 for at least 1 month; RRF of ≤ 5 mL/min; weekly (renal + peritoneal) CrCl of ≥ 50 L/1.73 m2 RRF ≥ 5 mL/min; using 4 or 5, 2 litre bags/24 hours with no dry period Number: treatment group 1 (20); treatment group 2 (20); control group (19) Age, range (years): treatment group 1 (54.5, 21.6 to 73.7); treatment group 2 (54.8, 27.8 to 79.1); control group (58.4, 25.5 to 74.7) Sex (M/F): treatment group 1 (17/3); treatment group 2 (13/7); control group (10/9) Exclusion criteria: low peritoneal transport (4‐hour dialysate:plasma creatinine < 0.5); known to be HIV positive; peritonitis within the previous 30 days; suffered from liver disease or diabetes mellitus; added medication routinely to the dialysis bag
Interventions	Treatment group 1 Bicarbonate‐buffered (38 mmol/L bicarbonate) dialysis fluid Treatment group 2 Bicarbonate/lactate‐buffered (25 mmol/L bicarbonate, 15 mmol/L lactate) dialysis fluid Control group Conventional lactate‐buffered (40 mmol/L lactate) dialysis fluid
Outcomes	Peritoneal UF at 2 months Peritonitis Abdominal pain Other adverse events
Notes	Funding received from Baxter Healthcare Corporation, Brussels, Belgium
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Block randomisation in groups of 3, done separately for each centre; actual method of randomisation not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Open label. Measured outcome (e.g. abdominal pain) may have been influenced by lack of blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Drop‐out 13/59 (22%). Unequal between three groups with peritonitis being the major cause which may have been due to the treatment received
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All relevant clinical outcomes reported
Other bias	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement