Mohamed Alseiari1, Klemens B Meyer2, John B Wong3. 1. Division of Clinical Decision Making, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA. 2. William B. Schwartz Division of Nephrology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA. 3. Division of Clinical Decision Making, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA. Electronic address: jwong@tuftsmedicalcenter.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) clinical practice guidelines establish international recommendations for the definition and treatment of kidney disease. Our objective was to characterize the strength of evidence supporting the KDIGO guidelines, the class of recommendations made, and the relationship between these. STUDY DESIGN: We reviewed and abstracted the level of evidence and strength of recommendations in the currently available KDIGO guidelines. SETTING & POPULATION: KDIGO clinical practice guidelines target care of patients with kidney disease to improve outcomes. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: All KDIGO guidelines published on the KDIGO website as of November 2013 were included. PREDICTOR: Recommendations pertaining to disease, diagnosis, or treatment. OUTCOMES: Levels of evidence and strength of recommendations. RESULTS: Of 853 recommendations in 9 guidelines, 5% were supported by level A quality evidence; 17%, level B; 31%, level C; 18%, level D; and 20%, ungraded evidence. The strength of recommendations was class 1 for 25%, class 2 for 54%, and ungraded for 20%. Only 3% of recommendations were class 1 in strength and supported by level A evidence. Of the recommendations, 2% concerned disease definition and classification; 29%, diagnosis; and 69%, treatment. LIMITATIONS: Our study included only the KDIGO guidelines. We did not assess historical changes in nephrology guidelines recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: KDIGO recommendations were based largely on weak evidence, reflecting expert opinion. Few recommendations were both strong and supported by high-level evidence.
BACKGROUND: The KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) clinical practice guidelines establish international recommendations for the definition and treatment of kidney disease. Our objective was to characterize the strength of evidence supporting the KDIGO guidelines, the class of recommendations made, and the relationship between these. STUDY DESIGN: We reviewed and abstracted the level of evidence and strength of recommendations in the currently available KDIGO guidelines. SETTING & POPULATION: KDIGO clinical practice guidelines target care of patients with kidney disease to improve outcomes. SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES: All KDIGO guidelines published on the KDIGO website as of November 2013 were included. PREDICTOR: Recommendations pertaining to disease, diagnosis, or treatment. OUTCOMES: Levels of evidence and strength of recommendations. RESULTS: Of 853 recommendations in 9 guidelines, 5% were supported by level A quality evidence; 17%, level B; 31%, level C; 18%, level D; and 20%, ungraded evidence. The strength of recommendations was class 1 for 25%, class 2 for 54%, and ungraded for 20%. Only 3% of recommendations were class 1 in strength and supported by level A evidence. Of the recommendations, 2% concerned disease definition and classification; 29%, diagnosis; and 69%, treatment. LIMITATIONS: Our study included only the KDIGO guidelines. We did not assess historical changes in nephrology guidelines recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: KDIGO recommendations were based largely on weak evidence, reflecting expert opinion. Few recommendations were both strong and supported by high-level evidence.
Authors: Parag Goyal; Ozan Unlu; Peter J Kennel; Ross C Schumacher; Lauren G Gilstrap; Ashok Krishnaswami; Larry A Allen; Mathew S Maurer; Michael W Rich; Anil Makam Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2020-10-14 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Maria Angélica Gonçalves Alonso; Valentine de Almeida Costa de Castro Lima; Maria Angela Magalhães de Queiroz Carreira; Jocemir Ronaldo Lugon Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2017-08-07 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Song Ee Park; Jin Ho Hwang; Jin Hwa Choi; Su-Hyun Kim; Jae Chol Choi; Joung Soon Jang; Hee Jun Kim; Suk Won Park; Ju Won Seok; In Gyu Hwang Journal: J Cancer Date: 2019-08-29 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: Jong Yeob Kim; Johanna Steingroever; Keum Hwa Lee; Jun Oh; Min Jae Choi; Jiwon Lee; Nicholas G Larkins; Franz Schaefer; Sung Hwi Hong; Gwang Hun Jeong; Jae Il Shin; Andreas Kronbichler Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 4.241