Table 1 Characteristics of included studies stratified by studied outcomes

Cao 2018 [28]

China

N = 160

Age 52.2 ± 15y

M = 58%

CAPD

RCT

Internet-based instant messaging software (N = 80)

Traditional follow-up (N = 80)

11.4 ± 1.5 months

Patient-satisfaction [modified from] [37]

Higher in the intervention group (p < 0.001, 98.1% vs 92.1%)

Unclear

Mortality

Lower in intervention group (p = 0.058, number of events not reported)

Exit-site infection

N.S. difference

Peritonitis

Higher in intervention group (60 cases in 80 patients (75%) vs 40 cases in 80 patients (50%) statistical significance not reported)

Transfer to HD (was not a pre-specified outcome)

N.S. difference

Hospitalizations

N.S. difference

Li 2014 [30]

China

N = 135

Age 56.3 ± 12.4y

M = 59%

CAPD

RCT

Post-discharge nurse-led telephone support (N = 69)

Routine hospital discharge care (N = 66)

12 weeks

QoL (KDQOL-SF)

N.S. difference

Unclear

Patient satisfaction (sub-item of KDQOL-SF)

Higher in intervention group (p < 0.01, 73.7% vs 70.5%)

Peritonitis

N.S. difference

Catheter-infections

N.S. difference (data not shown)

Readmissions

N.S. difference

Clinical visits

Less in intervention group (71% vs 47%, p = 0.039)

Sanabria 2019 [36]

Colombia

N = 360

Age 57 ± 17y

M = 56%

APD incident patients

Retrospective cohort study

RPM-APD (N = 65)

N = 63 used for propensity score matching

Mean duration = 0.76 ± 0.27 years

APD without RPM (N = 295). N = 63 used for propensity score matching

0.86 + − 0.27y in APD-RPM vs 0.74 + − 0.34y in APD without RPM

Hospitalizations

Less in intervention group (42.6% vs 68.1%, p = 0.029)

Low

Number of hospital days

Less in intervention group (5.59 vs 12.16 days per patients-year, p = 0.028)

Harrington 2014 [29]

USA

N = 6

Age 52.2 ± 6.5y

M = 50%

CAPD

Pilot study

A tablet computer application allowing real-time monitoring and two-way communication

Mean duration = 92 days, SD = not reported

No comparison

8 months

Patient satisfaction (Likert scale (1-10))

5.2 on Likert scale

Moderate

Milan- Manani 2020 [21]

Italy

N = 73

Age 60,4 [47.4–75.1] y

M: 77% in intervention group; 71% in control group APD

Retrospective cohort study

APD-RM (N = 35)

APD standard care (N = 38)

6 months

QoL (KDQOL-SF)

N.S. difference

Moderate

Peritonitis

N.S. difference

Transfer to HD (duration not specified)

0 in intervention group, 1 in control group

Hospitalizations

N.S. difference in all-causeLess disease-specific hospitalizations in the intervention group (18.2% vs 77.8%, p = 0.022)

Frequency of visits

N.S. difference in all-cause (p = 0.095)Less urgent visits due to overhydration (p = 0.042)

Dey 2016 [35]

UK

N = 22

Age 61.6 [IQR 26.4–93.4] y

M = 55%

APD

Pilot study

Computer tablets (PODs) with integrated software for weighing scales and blood pressure machines; patient vital data recording; questionnaire regarding complaints (at beginning and end of study); twice-weekly dietary questionnaire; access to medical and educational information. Mean duration = 341.9 days, SD = not reported

Pre-intervention with PODs

15 months

Quality of life (KDQOL-36)

N.S. difference

Serious

Patient satisfaction (QUEST)

N.S. difference

Chaudhuri 2020 [31]

U.S.A.

N = 6343

Age 56. 9 ± 15.2y

M = 57%

% CAPD not specified

Retrospective study

RTM ‘PatientHub’

moderate users (N = 673)

frequent users (N = 1577)

RTM involves patients viewing their dialysis orders, laboratory

results, medications, supply orders

and documenting their daily PD treatment data, vital signs, complications

RTM non-users (N = 4093)

12 months

Transfer to HD (> 6wks)

Lower in frequent users versus non-users (p = 0.001, on average 30.5 ± 2.5% lower)

Moderate

Hospitalizations

Lower in frequent users versus non-users (on average 23.75 ± 1.71% lower, p ≤ 0.001)

Number of hospital days

Lower in frequent users versus non-users (on average 34.75 ± 2.5% lower, p ≤ 0.001)

Corzo 2020 [34]

Colombia

N = 558

Age 53.8 ± 16.9y

M = 60%,

APD

Retrospective, multicenter, observational cohort study

APD-RPM

(N = 148)

APD without RPM

(N = 410)

N = 148 used for propensity score matching

1.1 ± 0.6 years

Transfer to HD (>30d)

Lower in intervention group (p = 0.03)

Moderate

Mortality

N.S. difference(only reported for the non-matched population)

Nayak 2012 [17]

India

N = 246

Age 51.5 ± 12.8y in rural group

52.3 ± 12.6y in urban group

M: 70% in rural group; 69% in urban group

%CAPD not specified

Observational

Internet-based RM system (including online log of dialysis data, pictures, access to laboratory results, health records and prescriptions, possibility to schedule appointments and to receive alerts) in rural patients (N = 115)

Internet-based RM system (including online log of dialysis data, pictures, access to laboratory results, health records and prescriptions, possibility to schedule appointments and to receive alerts) in urban patients (N = 131)

2008 patient-months in the rural group; 2288 patient-months in the urban group

Peritonitis

N.S. difference

Moderate

Exit-site infection

N.S. difference

Bunch 2020 [19]

Colombia

N = 1.023

Age 63 [IQR 51–72] y

M = 61%

APD

Observational cohort study

RPM-APD during pandemic (on-site evaluation only for special indications, weekly telephonic triage, daily review APD treatments, technique review through videos sent by patients)

RPM-APD before the covid-19 pandemic (track patient’s adherence, blood pressure, ultrafiltration,

and weight daily; perform proactive telephone interventions anticipating

possible urgent care requirements)

3 months

Peritonitis

N.S. difference

Serious

On-site evaluations perpatient/month

Lower in the intervention group p < 0.01 (the absolute number of evaluations was not reported)

Teleconsultations per patient/month

Higher in the intervention group p < 0.01 (the absolute number of teleconsultations was not reported)

Polanco 2020 [16]

Dominican Republic

N = 913

Age 51 [IQR 19–96] y

M = 62%

99.6% CAPD

Observational prospective study

Telemedicine-facilitated PD protocol (monthly telephone contact, psychological and nutritional surveys, pictures of daily dialysis records and lower limbs (possible edema) through Whatsapp if internet was available).

Duration = 3 months

Standard PD protocol 3 months prior to implementation of intervention

3 months

Transfer to HD (duration not specified)

N.S. difference

Serious

Peritonitis

N.S. difference

Hospitalizations

N.S. difference

Viglino 2020 [18]

Italy

N = 107

Age 72.2 ± 13.1y

M = 59%

%CAPD not specified

Observational study

VideoDialysis assisted PD (N = 15)

Mean duration = 19.0 ± 12.9 months

Traditional assisted PD (N = 62) and self-PD (N = 30)

285 months/1869 patient-months

Peritonitis

N.S. difference

Serious

Time free from first peritonitis

N.S. difference

Transfer to HD (duration not specified)

N = 3 (20%) in intervention group versus 17 (18%) in the control group (no statistical analysis performed)

Lew 2019 [15]

U.S.A.

N = 125

Age 56 [IQR 43.6–64.3] y

M = 57%

< 10% CAPD

Pilot observational study

RBM of weight and bloodpressure and two-way videoconferencing between patient and nurse (n = 125)

Duration not reported

Costs pre-intervention

No information

Overall costs of care

N.S. difference for overall costs

Serious

Outpatient visit claim payment amounts decreased post-intervention relative to pre-intervention for those at age 18–54 years. (p = 0.0155) In other subgroups (gender, race) non- or nearly significant changes were found.

Hospitalizations and length of hospitalization

Less for RBM-collected weight and higher for RBM-collected blood pressure (number of events and length not reported)

Milan- Manani 2019 [20]

Italy

N = 85

Age 56.5 ± 15.5y

M = 75%

APD

Observational cohort study

RM-APD (N = 43)

Duration = at least 12 months

Patients with APD without RM (historical cohort)

(N = 42)

13.28 [IQR 6.65–14.65] months in the invention group

12 months (fixed) in the control group

Hospital savings

€9130 for personnel and €5810 for logistics (p < 0.01)

Serious

In-person visits

Lower in the intervention group (3.56 vs 5.14 visits per patient/year, p < 0.01)

Dey 2016 [35]

UK

N = 22

Age 61.6 [IQR 26.4–93.4] y

M = 55%

APD

Pilot study

Computer tablets (PODs) with integrated software for weighing scales and blood pressure machines; patient vital data recording; questionnaire regarding complaints (at beginning and end of study); twice-weekly dietary questionnaire; access to medical and educational information.

Mean duration = 341.9 days, SD = not reported

Pre-intervention with PODs

15 months

Quality of life (KDQOL-36)

N.S. difference

Serious

Patient satisfaction (QUEST

N.S. difference

Kiberd 2014 [32]

Canada

N = 17

Age 57.1 ± 1.9y

M = 52%

%CAPD not specified

Pilot study

Web-based portal allowing communication between patients and healthcare team; Duration = 12 months

Pre-intervention

6 and 12 months

Quality of life (CQI and EQ-5D)

N.S. difference as compared to baseline

Critical

Patient satisfaction (Likert scale (1-10) modified from) [38]

6.5 ± 0.6 on Likert scale

Magnus 2017 [33]

USA

N = 200

Mean age = not reported

M = 51%

% CAPD not specified

Observational study

RBM of blood pressure, weight and glucose (if diabetic), including video chat with the healthcare team; access to online educational resources.

Duration = not reported

Pre-intervention with RBM; video-chat and/or access to online educational videos

Not reported

Patient satisfaction

(26-item TSUQ) [39]

Number of persons that were satisfied or completely satisfied (90.7%) was higher

than at baseline (p < 0.001)

Critical

Exit-site infection

10.5% post-intervention and 7.3% pre-intervention (no statistical analysis)

Hospitalizations

20.8% pre-intervention and 15.1% post-intervention (no statistical analysis)