Background/Objectives: Diet recommendations for individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are complex and can be challenging to integrate into daily routines. Mobile health (mHealth) interventions may support dietary education, self-monitoring, and disease management; however, their effects on nutrition-related and clinical outcomes in CKD remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of mHealth interventions on nutrition-related and clinical outcomes among adults with CKD. Methods: The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Five databases were searched from inception through February 2026. Controlled trials, quasi-experimental designs and pre–post studies evaluating mHealth interventions and reporting nutrition-related and/or clinical outcomes were eligible for inclusion. Randomized controlled trials and controlled quasi-experimental studies with comparable outcomes and sufficient data were included in the quantitative synthesis. Pre–post studies were synthesized narratively because changes from baseline could not be distinguished from temporal effects in the absence of a concurrent comparator. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and ROBINS-I. Results: Twenty-three studies were included in the review, with eight meeting the inclusion criteria for a meta-analysis. Among the quantitative synthesis of adults on dialysis, no significant effects were shown with biochemical outcomes or interdialytic weight gain. Several pre–post studies reported within-study improvements in dietary intake, including sodium intake, and blood pressure outcomes. These findings should be interpreted cautiously because the absence of a concurrent control group precludes attributing observed changes specifically to the mHealth intervention. Conclusions: mHealth interventions may support improvements in selected dietary and clinical outcomes among adults with CKD; however, evidence from randomized controlled trials remains limited. Improvements reported in pre/post studies should be interpreted cautiously and additional well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to determine their effectiveness across CKD populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Walter-Cano et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: