The usefulness of regional bioimpedance analysis (RBIA) in determining the dry weight in dialysis patients is currently being investigated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reproducibility of measurement of resistivity in the calf. Methods: Twenty-five normal subjects and 10 patients undergoing regular hemodialysis were studied. Four electrodes inserted into a blood pressure cuff were placed on the calf. Bioimpedance was continuously measured over 3- to 5-min periods (Xitron Hydra). After a resting period of 1 min, cuff pressure was increased to above the systolic blood pressure (SBP) for a few seconds to expel excess ECF fluid and then deflated. The effect on recordings of moving the electrodes 2 cm higher and then 2 cm lower than the normal position was studied in 8 normal subjects. In a second study of reproducibility, post-dialysis measurements were made twice in 10 patients who maintained the same post-dialysis target weight throughout the study period. Results: The mean resting resistivity (ρ₀) in normal subjects was 532.6 ± 95 Ω·cm rising to 583.9 ± 99.7 Ω·cm when cuff pressure was applied (ρ<sub>p</sub>). The average values of ρ₀ and ρ<sub>p</sub> in patients post-dialysis were 489 ± 74 and 537 ± 77 respectively showing that there were no significant differences in ρ₀ and ρ<sub>p</sub> between normal subjects and patients post-dialysis. The mean values of change in resistivity when the electrodes were shifted between the lowest and highest positions on the calf were –3.66 ± 4.45 and –1.44 ± 3.82%, respectively. Repeat measurement of resistivity in patients post-dialysis varied by 2.04 ± 2.29% while post-dialysis body weight varied by 0.17 ± 0.47%. Conclusion: In this study, resistivity measurement by RBIA at the calf showed similar levels of fluid loading in patients post-dialysis as in normal subjects. This study also showed that change in electrode position resulted in a mean change in resistivity of <5% and repeated measurements showed a change in resistivity <3% while body weight changes were <0.2%. This technique appears to have an acceptable level of reproducibility for its application to the assessment of patient hydration.