To assess publication bias, we used funnel plots of the log odds ratio (effect vs. standard error of the effect size) when a suf cient number of studies were Other reasons for the asymmetry of funnel plots were considered. Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis was undertaken to explore whether there were clinical dif- ferences between the studies that may have systematically in uenced the differences that were observed in the critical and important outcomes. However, subgroup analyses are hypothesis-forming rather than hypothesis-testing and should be interpreted with caution. The following subgroups were considered: severity of CKD, primary kidney disease, elderly age/presence of comorbidities, presence of proteinuria or albuminuria, diabetes, number of antihypertensives, lifestyle behaviors/health behaviors. The test of subgroup differences used the I2 statistic and a P value of 0.1 (noting that this is a weak test).383 Sensitivity analysis. The following sensitivity analyses were considered: Table 1| Hierarchy of outcomes Hierarchy Outcomes Critical outcomes  All-cause mortality  Cardiovascular mortality  Kidney failure (formerly known as ESKD)  Cardiovascular events (MI, stroke, HF)  Dementia or cognitive impairment Important outcomes  Doubling serum creatinine  AKI  Falls  Fatigue  Body weight  Blood pressure Outcomes of limited importance  eGFR or creatinine clearance  Proteinuria AKI, acute kidney injury; eGFR, estimated glomerular ltration rate; ESKD, end-stage kidney disease; HF, heart failure; MI, myocardial infarction. The critical and important outcomes were voted on by the Work Group using an adapted Delphi process (1 9 Likert scale). Critical outcomes median was rated 7 9, and important outcomes were rated 4 6 on the 9-point scale. 