Study designs of evaluations included in the review
All designs of study were eligible for potential inclusion in the review. Five points were used to identify potentially suitable papers for inclusion in the review. Papers had to contain clear and unambiguous presentation of the information/findings. Objectives and methods of the study had to be clearly stated. There had to be a clear description of the research design explicitly stated. The results had to be comprehensively reported and discussed. All recommendations made had to be clear and concise and consistent with the study's stated objectives.
Specific interventions included in the review
CAPD, compared with haemodialysis at home, or in hospital, or transplant.
Participants included in the review
Patients with end-stage renal failure (ESRF) receiving CAPD.
Outcomes assessed in the review
Mortality and various 'Quality of Life' assessments, namely: dialysis, function (physical), adaptation of patient to dialysis, neurocognitive status, affective state, social support, recreation and work, coping, compliance.
How were decisions on the relevance of primary studies made?
The authors do not state how the papers were selected for the review, or how many of the reviewers performed the selection.