BALANCEWise‐PD 2011.

Methods	Study design: parallel RCT; 30 peritoneal dialysis patients assessed for eligibility; 26 randomised Study duration: 16 weeks Study follow‐up: 16 weeks
Participants	Country: USA Setting: multicentre (3 sites) Dialysis‐dependent CKD Number (randomised/completed): intervention group (13/11); control group (13/10) Mean age ± SD (years): intervention group (51.7 ± 19.8); control group (not reported) Sex (M/F): intervention group (7/6); control group (not reported) Race: intervention group (8/13 minority race); control group (not reported) Exclusion criteria: could not read or write; planned to move out of area or change dialysis centres during the study period
Interventions	Intervention type classification: self‐monitoring eHealth intervention used: PDA application Intervention group PDA‐based diet self‐monitoring PDA‐based dietary self‐monitoring using a nutrient database with individual nutrient and calorie goals as per renal dietitian. Electronic food diary logs uploaded when meeting face‐to‐face 16 weeks of dietary counselling based on Social Cognitive Theory. Primarily focused on moderating dietary sodium intake, additional counselling if electronic record suggested inadequate protein or caloric intake or laboratory markers showing hyperphosphataemia or hyperkalaemia. Counselling was conducted face‐to‐face or via telephone and occurred twice a week during weeks 1 to 6, weekly during weeks 7 to 12, and every other week for weeks 13 to 16 Control group Not reported
Outcomes	Adherence to diet self‐monitoring (intervention group only) Number of meals entered
Notes	Funding source: work was supported by the following grants: Paul Teschan Research Foundation, NIH/NIDDK/DK‐R21DK067181, NIH/NCRR/CTSA‐UL1‐RR024153, and NIH/NCRR/GCRC‐M01‐ RR000056
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Study described as randomised, method of random sequence generation not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Blinding of participants	High risk	Participants could not have been blinded
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) Blinding of personnel	High risk	The intervention and attention control activities were conducted by study staff
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Objective outcome	Low risk	Number of meals entered was an objective measure
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Subjective outcomes	Low risk	No subjective outcomes were measured
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	High risk	Primary outcomes were not reported
Other bias	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement