Grading evidence and recommendations for clinical practice guidelines in nephrology. A position statement from Kidney Disease

Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO)

K. Uhlig, A. MacLeod, J. Craig, J. Lau, A. S. Levey, A. Levin, L. Moist, E. Steinberg, R. Walker, C. Wanner, N. Lameire, G. Eknoyan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Considerable variation in grading systems used to rate the strength of guideline recommendations and the quality of the supporting evidence in Nephrology highlights the need for a uniform, internationally accepted, rigorous system. In 2004, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) commissioned a methods expert group to recommend an approach for grading in future nephrology guidelines. This position statement by KDIGO recommends adopting the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for the grading of evidence and guidelines on interventions. The GRADE approach appraises systematic reviews of the benefits and harms of an intervention to determine its net health benefit. The system considers the design, quality, and quantity of studies as well as the consistency and directness of findings when grading the quality of evidence. The strength of the recommendation builds on the quality of the evidence and additional considerations including costs. Adaptations of the GRADE approach are presented to address some issues pertinent to the field of nephrology, including (1) the need to extrapolate from studies performed predominantly in patients without kidney disease, and (2) the need to use qualitative summaries of effects when it is not feasible to quantitatively summarize them. Further refinement of the system will be required for grading of evidence on questions other than those related to intervention effects, such as diagnostic accuracy and prognosis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2058-2065
Number of pages8
JournalKidney International
Volume70
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2006

Fingerprint

Nephrology
Kidney Diseases
Practice Guidelines
Guidelines
Insurance Benefits
Costs and Cost Analysis

Keywords

  • Chronic kidney disease
  • Clinical practice guidelines
  • Grading evidence
  • Grading recommendations

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nephrology

Cite this

Grading evidence and recommendations for clinical practice guidelines in nephrology. A position statement from Kidney Disease : Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO). / Uhlig, K.; MacLeod, A.; Craig, J.; Lau, J.; Levey, A. S.; Levin, A.; Moist, L.; Steinberg, E.; Walker, R.; Wanner, C.; Lameire, N.; Eknoyan, G.

In: Kidney International, Vol. 70, No. 12, 12.2006, p. 2058-2065.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Uhlig, K, MacLeod, A, Craig, J, Lau, J, Levey, AS, Levin, A, Moist, L, Steinberg, E, Walker, R, Wanner, C, Lameire, N & Eknoyan, G 2006, 'Grading evidence and recommendations for clinical practice guidelines in nephrology. A position statement from Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO)', Kidney International, vol. 70, no. 12, pp. 2058-2065. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ki.5001875
Uhlig, K. ; MacLeod, A. ; Craig, J. ; Lau, J. ; Levey, A. S. ; Levin, A. ; Moist, L. ; Steinberg, E. ; Walker, R. ; Wanner, C. ; Lameire, N. ; Eknoyan, G. / Grading evidence and recommendations for clinical practice guidelines in nephrology. A position statement from Kidney Disease : Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO). In: Kidney International. 2006 ; Vol. 70, No. 12. pp. 2058-2065.
@article{7ef0f4c8f3e843808d940dd778636417,
title = "Grading evidence and recommendations for clinical practice guidelines in nephrology. A position statement from Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO)",
abstract = "Considerable variation in grading systems used to rate the strength of guideline recommendations and the quality of the supporting evidence in Nephrology highlights the need for a uniform, internationally accepted, rigorous system. In 2004, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) commissioned a methods expert group to recommend an approach for grading in future nephrology guidelines. This position statement by KDIGO recommends adopting the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for the grading of evidence and guidelines on interventions. The GRADE approach appraises systematic reviews of the benefits and harms of an intervention to determine its net health benefit. The system considers the design, quality, and quantity of studies as well as the consistency and directness of findings when grading the quality of evidence. The strength of the recommendation builds on the quality of the evidence and additional considerations including costs. Adaptations of the GRADE approach are presented to address some issues pertinent to the field of nephrology, including (1) the need to extrapolate from studies performed predominantly in patients without kidney disease, and (2) the need to use qualitative summaries of effects when it is not feasible to quantitatively summarize them. Further refinement of the system will be required for grading of evidence on questions other than those related to intervention effects, such as diagnostic accuracy and prognosis.",
keywords = "Chronic kidney disease, Clinical practice guidelines, Grading evidence, Grading recommendations",
author = "K. Uhlig and A. MacLeod and J. Craig and J. Lau and Levey, {A. S.} and A. Levin and L. Moist and E. Steinberg and R. Walker and C. Wanner and N. Lameire and G. Eknoyan",
year = "2006",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1038/sj.ki.5001875",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "70",
pages = "2058--2065",
journal = "Kidney International",
issn = "0085-2538",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Grading evidence and recommendations for clinical practice guidelines in nephrology. A position statement from Kidney Disease

T2 - Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO)

AU - Uhlig, K.

AU - MacLeod, A.

AU - Craig, J.

AU - Lau, J.

AU - Levey, A. S.

AU - Levin, A.

AU - Moist, L.

AU - Steinberg, E.

AU - Walker, R.

AU - Wanner, C.

AU - Lameire, N.

AU - Eknoyan, G.

PY - 2006/12

Y1 - 2006/12

N2 - Considerable variation in grading systems used to rate the strength of guideline recommendations and the quality of the supporting evidence in Nephrology highlights the need for a uniform, internationally accepted, rigorous system. In 2004, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) commissioned a methods expert group to recommend an approach for grading in future nephrology guidelines. This position statement by KDIGO recommends adopting the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for the grading of evidence and guidelines on interventions. The GRADE approach appraises systematic reviews of the benefits and harms of an intervention to determine its net health benefit. The system considers the design, quality, and quantity of studies as well as the consistency and directness of findings when grading the quality of evidence. The strength of the recommendation builds on the quality of the evidence and additional considerations including costs. Adaptations of the GRADE approach are presented to address some issues pertinent to the field of nephrology, including (1) the need to extrapolate from studies performed predominantly in patients without kidney disease, and (2) the need to use qualitative summaries of effects when it is not feasible to quantitatively summarize them. Further refinement of the system will be required for grading of evidence on questions other than those related to intervention effects, such as diagnostic accuracy and prognosis.

AB - Considerable variation in grading systems used to rate the strength of guideline recommendations and the quality of the supporting evidence in Nephrology highlights the need for a uniform, internationally accepted, rigorous system. In 2004, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) commissioned a methods expert group to recommend an approach for grading in future nephrology guidelines. This position statement by KDIGO recommends adopting the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for the grading of evidence and guidelines on interventions. The GRADE approach appraises systematic reviews of the benefits and harms of an intervention to determine its net health benefit. The system considers the design, quality, and quantity of studies as well as the consistency and directness of findings when grading the quality of evidence. The strength of the recommendation builds on the quality of the evidence and additional considerations including costs. Adaptations of the GRADE approach are presented to address some issues pertinent to the field of nephrology, including (1) the need to extrapolate from studies performed predominantly in patients without kidney disease, and (2) the need to use qualitative summaries of effects when it is not feasible to quantitatively summarize them. Further refinement of the system will be required for grading of evidence on questions other than those related to intervention effects, such as diagnostic accuracy and prognosis.

KW - Chronic kidney disease

KW - Clinical practice guidelines

KW - Grading evidence

KW - Grading recommendations

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33845343267&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33845343267&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/sj.ki.5001875

DO - 10.1038/sj.ki.5001875

M3 - Article

VL - 70

SP - 2058

EP - 2065

JO - Kidney International

JF - Kidney International

SN - 0085-2538

IS - 12

ER -