Advanced search
1 file | 111.40 KB Add to list

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

(2006) KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL. 70(12). p.2058-2065
Author
Organization
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
STRENGTH, RANDOMIZED-TRIALS, QUALITY, clinical practice guidelines, grading evidence, chronic kidney disease, grading recommendations, BIAS

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 111.40 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Uhlig, K, A MacLeod, J Craig, et al. “Grading Evidence and Recommendations for Clinical Practice Guidelines in Nephrology: a Position Statement from Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO).” KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL 70.12 (2006): 2058–2065. Print.
APA
Uhlig, K., MacLeod, A., Craig, J., Lau, J., Levey, A., Levin, A., Moist, L., et al. (2006). Grading evidence and recommendations for clinical practice guidelines in nephrology: a position statement from Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO). KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL, 70(12), 2058–2065.
Chicago author-date
Uhlig, K, A MacLeod, J Craig, J Lau, AS Levey, A Levin, L Moist, et al. 2006. “Grading Evidence and Recommendations for Clinical Practice Guidelines in Nephrology: a Position Statement from Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO).” Kidney International 70 (12): 2058–2065.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Uhlig, K, A MacLeod, J Craig, J Lau, AS Levey, A Levin, L Moist, E Steinberg, R Walker, C Wanner, Norbert Lameire, and G Eknoyan. 2006. “Grading Evidence and Recommendations for Clinical Practice Guidelines in Nephrology: a Position Statement from Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO).” Kidney International 70 (12): 2058–2065.
Vancouver
1.
Uhlig K, MacLeod A, Craig J, Lau J, Levey A, Levin A, et al. Grading evidence and recommendations for clinical practice guidelines in nephrology: a position statement from Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO). KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL. 2006;70(12):2058–65.
IEEE
[1]
K. Uhlig et al., “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, 2006.
@article{2092643,
  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.},
  author       = {Uhlig, K and MacLeod, A and Craig, J and Lau, J and Levey, AS and Levin, A and Moist, L and Steinberg, E and Walker, R and Wanner, C and Lameire, Norbert and Eknoyan, G},
  issn         = {0085-2538},
  journal      = {KIDNEY INTERNATIONAL},
  keywords     = {STRENGTH,RANDOMIZED-TRIALS,QUALITY,clinical practice guidelines,grading evidence,chronic kidney disease,grading recommendations,BIAS},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {12},
  pages        = {2058--2065},
  title        = {Grading evidence and recommendations for clinical practice guidelines in nephrology: a position statement from Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO)},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.ki.5001875},
  volume       = {70},
  year         = {2006},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: