Objective Precise measurements of fluid status lack valid methods. Bioimpedance is an attractive diagnostic tool because it is noninvasive, quick, and relatively cheap. This systematic review aims to assess the existing evidence of bioimpedance as an accurate measure of fluid status in critically ill patients. Data sources PubMed and Embase up till March 2021 were systematically searched (PROSPERO: CRD42020157436). Study selection Eligibility criteria were studies reporting original data from cohorts of adult patients in intensive care units and doing at least one whole‐body bioimpedance and one reference test. In addition, studies assessing internal reproducibility were included. Data extraction An extraction form was designed for the purpose. Data synthesis Nine hundred five studies were screened for eligibility, and 28 studies, comprising 1482 individual patients, were included in the final analysis. Eight studies compared bioimpedance with a gold standard, and two of those reported the results adequate. We found a low mean difference, but the 95% limits of agreements had wide limits. The remaining studies applied different surrogates as reference tests. Correlations ranged from 0.05 to 0.99. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) certainty of evidence for all outcomes was very low. Conclusions The accuracy of bioimpedance as a measure for fluids in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit cannot be determined. Due to the lack of a gold standard, numerous studies compared bioimpedance with surrogate outcomes with great variability in both designs and results. Assessing the internal reproducibility of bioimpedance had the same limitations, but the studies overall reported good internal reproducibility.

Background: Septic shock is often treated with aggressive fluid resuscitation leading to profound fluid overload. The assessment of fluid status relies on suboptimal measures making treatment difficult. Bioelectrical impedance analysis is an alternative but the validity is unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the validity of bioelectrical impedance analysis for fluid measures in patients with septic shock.Methods: Single-center, prospective observational cohort study. We included adult ICU patients with septic shock. We evaluated the agreement between measures on the left and right side of the patient and measures 1 h apart by two bioelectrical impedance devices. Results are presented as Bland Altman plots with 95% Limits of Agreements (LoA) and as correlations between bioelectrical impedance analysis results and clinical markers of fluids.Results: Forty-nine patients were included. The agreement between measures on the left and the right side of the patient and after 1 h was overall without bias, but with wide LoA's. Fluid overload 1 h apart showed the most narrow 95% LoA (À2.4-2.9 L).The same wide limits of agreements were observed when comparing devices. For example, total body water with 95% LoA of À14.8 -16.7 L. Correlations between bioelectrical impedance analysis and clinical measures were low but statistically significant. Conclusions:In patients with septic shock bioelectrical impedance analysis had no systematic errors or bias, but wide limits of agreement, indicating that the devices have a large and uncorrectable random error. Fluid status by bioelectrical impedance analysis is not sufficiently accurate to guide treatment in this group of patients.