OBJECTIVES: Acute renal failure is responsible for about 1% of hospital admissions, and occurs in up to 7% of hospitalized patients and up to 20% of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU´s). When it is severe enough to require dialysis, in-hospital mortality rate ranges from 50% to 75% and is also increases risk for chronic and terminal kidney diseases. Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy (CRRT) in its various forms has theoretical advantages over conventionally done Intermittent Hemodialysis (IHD) at significantly higher costs, but these advantages attributed to CRRT have not yet been consistently proven in terms of clinical outcomes in controlled trials. METHODS: We have made a literature search in PubMed to identify systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials that studied patient-oriented outcomes (mortality and renal recovery). RESULTS: We have found five systematic reviews published in 2007 and 2008 and conducted our own metanalysis on six trials published from 2001 to 2009 (no clinical outcomes oriented trial has been published since them). None of the reviews that directly compared CRRT to IHD have shown statistically significant advantages of any of them regarding in-hospital or ICU mortality or renal function recovery We have analyzed six randomized no-blinded clinical trials that met eligibility criteria of evaluating patient-oriented outcomes including 1151 patients. Five of them had high to moderate GRADE scores. None have shown absolute risk reduction of in hospital, ICU or at 60 days mortality or statistically significant renal recovery rates. Overall mortality relative risk of CRRT over IHD was 1,01 (95%CI: 0,92 – 1,11). We found moderate heterogeneity and no publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trials published until October 2012 have shown no difference in patient-oriented outcomes between the uses of CRRT and IHD techniques in adult patients admitted to intensive care units with acute renal failure and requiring renal replacement therapy.