STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE
The outcome of our quality assessment is shown in Table 3 . In
general, we determined that the strength of evidence was overall of low
quality. The level of information provided about CRRT techniques was
broadly inconsistent with few studies providing the level of information
required to enable comprehensive interrogation or meta-analysis of the
data. In one study [38] , demographics were only provided at
aggregate level which prevented individualised pharmacokinetic analysis.
Time spent on filter was only mentioned in one study [34]and while it could be assumed that haemofiltration was continuous, it
was clear that at least some patients experienced filter clotting and
pauses to treatment. The two prospective studies in our data set[37, 38] were judged to be of higher quality predominantly
due to the more robust and comprehensive nature of their pharmacokinetic
data.