A digest from evidence-based Clinical Practice Guideline for Polycystic Kidney Disease 2020

Author(s):  
Saori Nishio ◽  
Ken Tsuchiya ◽  
Shinya Nakatani ◽  
Satoru Muto ◽  
Toshio Mochizuki ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 510-510
Author(s):  
Shigeo Horie ◽  
Toshio Mochizuki ◽  
Satoru Muto ◽  
Kazushige Hanaoka ◽  
Yoshimitsu Fukushima ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 493-509 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shigeo Horie ◽  
Toshio Mochizuki ◽  
Satoru Muto ◽  
Kazushige Hanaoka ◽  
Yoshimitsu Fukushima ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 513-521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordi Bover ◽  
Pablo Ureña-Torres ◽  
Silvia Mateu ◽  
Iara DaSilva ◽  
Silvia Gràcia ◽  
...  

Abstract Chronic kidney disease–mineral and bone disorder (CKD–MBD) is one of the many important complications associated with CKD and may at least partially explain the extremely high morbidity and mortality among CKD patients. The 2009 Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Clinical Practice Guideline document was based on the best information available at that time and was designed not only to provide information but also to assist in decision-making. In addition to the international KDIGO Work Group, which included worldwide experts, an independent Evidence Review Team was assembled to ensure rigorous review and grading of the existing evidence. Based on the evidence from new clinical trials, an updated Clinical Practice Guideline was published in 2017. In this review, we focus on the conceptual and practical evolution of clinical guidelines (from eMinence-based medicine to eVidence-based medicine and ‘living’ guidelines), highlight some of the current important CKD–MBD-related changes, and underline the poor or extremely poor level of evidence present in those guidelines (as well as in other areas of nephrology). Finally, we emphasize the importance of individualization of treatments and shared decision-making (based on important ethical considerations and the ‘best available evidence’), which may prove useful in the face of the uncertainty over the decision whether ‘to treat’ or ‘to wait’.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document