Fernandez‐Perpen 2012.

Methods	Study design: prospective RCT, presumed open‐label (not disclosed) Study duration: not reported Follow‐up period: 24 months
Participants	Countries: Spain Setting: multicentre (2 university hospitals) Incident patients who are able and willing to perform CAPD with no expressed indication for APD Number: treatment group (11); control group (20) Mean age ± SD (years): treatment group (68.22 ± 8.8); control group (59 ± 15) Sex (M/F): treatment group (8/3); control group (9/11) Diabetic: treatment group (38%); control group (15%) Exclusion criteria: none
Interventions	Treatment group BicaVera (1.5, 2.3%, 4.25% glucose) Control group Conventional PD fluid (Stay‐safe; 1.5%, 2.3% and 4.25%)
Outcomes	Peritonitis rate Death Technique survival UF capacity RRF
Notes	Study supported by grants from REDinREN, MLC and unrestricted grant from Fresenius Medical Care. Note: significant difference in outcome re: UF capacity and RRF reported, but these differences were present from the baseline
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Quote: "patients were randomly assigned to either BicaVera or the standard PD fluid by the doctors"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Quote: "patients were randomly assigned to either BicaVera or the standard PD fluid by the doctors"
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	High dropout rate (23 /31 (74.2%)). Imbalance in missing data between the two groups
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	All relevant clinical outcomes reported
Other bias	High risk	Outcome parameters significantly different at baseline (e.g. urine volume, RRF)