Grading evidence and recommendations for clinical practice guidelines in nephrology: A position statement from Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO)

K. Uhlig, Alison 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 journalLiterature review

143 Citations (Scopus)

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
Pages (from-to)2058-2065
Number of pages8
JournalKidney International
Volume70
Early online date27 Sep 2006
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2006

Keywords

  • clinical practice guidelines
  • grading evidence
  • grading recommendations
  • chronic kidney disease
  • randomized trials
  • quality
  • strength
  • bias

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, Alison; 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, 2006, p. 2058-2065.

Research output: Contribution to journalLiterature review

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, pp. 2058-2065. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ki.5001875
Uhlig, K. ; MacLeod, Alison ; 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. pp. 2058-2065.
@article{9ad85b7e0aef45b3b891e7561d5e1b42,
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 = "clinical practice guidelines, grading evidence, grading recommendations, chronic kidney disease, randomized trials, quality, strength, bias",
author = "K. Uhlig and Alison 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",
doi = "10.1038/sj.ki.5001875",
language = "English",
volume = "70",
pages = "2058--2065",
journal = "Kidney International",
issn = "0085-2538",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Grading evidence and recommendations for clinical practice guidelines in nephrology

T2 - A position statement from Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO)

AU - Uhlig, K.

AU - MacLeod, Alison

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

Y1 - 2006

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 - clinical practice guidelines

KW - grading evidence

KW - grading recommendations

KW - chronic kidney disease

KW - randomized trials

KW - quality

KW - strength

KW - bias

U2 - 10.1038/sj.ki.5001875

DO - 10.1038/sj.ki.5001875

M3 - Literature review

VL - 70

SP - 2058

EP - 2065

JO - Kidney International

JF - Kidney International

SN - 0085-2538

ER -