Skip to main content
  • Expert Commentary
  • January 04, 2010

Using GRADE for International Guidelines on Kidney Disease

To enhance transparency and accountability in guideline development and to facilitate guideline adaptation, the quality of supporting evidence and the strength of recommendations are commonly graded. According to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach, the grade of a recommendation communicates the confidence of the guideline development group that following the recommendation will do more good than harm, thereby expressing the guideline panel's confidence that users should follow the recommendation (1, 2).

At the Tufts Center for Kidney Disease Guideline Development and Implementation at Tufts University, we have used the GRADE approach to develop guidelines for Kidney Diseases: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO; External Web Site Policy ), an international guideline-development initiative. Here we describe our experience with and challenges implementing the GRADE approach (3, 4). While our application is in the area of kidney disease, the issues we discuss are not domain specific.

The Tufts Center is an academically-based, independent group of methodologists and nephrologists under contract with the National Kidney Foundation. Each guideline (16 since 2000, 4 in progress) takes 12 to 24 months to complete, includes up to dozens of specific topics with systematic reviews of up to hundreds of studies, and is developed by a dedicated staff of physicians and other methodologists, a workgroup of 10 to 20 domain experts (primarily nephrologists), and dedicated supporting staff at the National Kidney Foundation. Initially, guideline development was under the auspices of the US-based Kidney Diseases Outcomes Quality Initiative (NKF KDOQI; External Web Site Policy ). When KDIGO was founded in 2003, we reviewed existing grading systems to standardize our methods. We adopted a modification of the GRADE approach.

The GRADE approach ranks outcomes by clinical importance, assesses the quality of the evidence for each outcome, grades the overall quality of the evidence, and determines the balance of benefits and harms. Initially, we continued to use 3 levels of recommendations (corresponding to strong, moderate, and weak). However, based on feedback from members of the GRADE working group and difficulties with expressing and translating the nuances of the 3 grading levels in English and other languages, the approach was again revised in December 2008 to more closely adhere to GRADE, with 2 levels of recommendations: Strong — "Do (or don't) do it"; and Weak — "Probably do (or don't do) it" (1). We have modified these to: Level 1, in which the recommendation includes "We recommend"; and Level 2, in which the recommendation includes "We suggest." In addition, as is described further below, the KDIGO approach allows "ungraded statements."

A recurring concern among KDIGO guideline workgroups is what to do when the evidence reviewed for a particular question provides an answer that is inconclusive. According to GRADE, where there are unclear trade-offs (between benefits and harms) or lack of agreement, "It may not be appropriate to make a recommendation" (1). However, a majority of KDIGO workgroup members and its Board of Directors have a different philosophy: the primary purpose of guidelines is to offer guidance to clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders on best or most appropriate care, even in the face of limited evidence. KDIGO encourages its workgroups to make recommendations based on the overwhelming consensus of its experts' judgments. It is therefore common for KDIGO guidelines to have Level 2 recommendations based on low or very low quality evidence, which may not have been made if a more rigid philosophy were used that requires higher quality or more definitive evidence to make a recommendation (like the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [USPSTF] recommendations) (5).

Another common issue regards what to do when a topic does not lend itself to a formal evidence review because the question is not specific enough or the recommendation is a reminder of the obvious. Common examples include recommendations about frequency of testing, referral to specialists, and routine medical care. The KDIGO leadership has agreed that in order for the guidelines to be of greatest value to users, "clinical pearls" or "common sense" recommendations may be included as ungraded statements (6). While we strive to minimize the use of ungraded statements, they remain common; for example, 20% (49 of 247) of the recommendations in the transplantation guidelines are ungraded (7).

Beyond these modifications to GRADE, the KDIGO experience with applying GRADE has highlighted several challenges in implementation, including the effort required to complete the many grading steps and the remaining subjectivity in grading and determining net benefit. To strictly apply GRADE, for each research question related to each recommendation one must compile a list of outcomes of interest, rank the importance of these outcomes, systematically review the evidence for each outcome, and assess the quality of the relevant studies, the consistency across the studies, the "directness" of the evidence and other possible threats to certainty. Though not stated explicitly by the GRADE Working Group, a quantitatively combined overall estimate from meta-analysis with evaluation of heterogeneity is required for each outcome to facilitate these assessments. This is particularly the case regarding the consistency in the "direction of effect [and] the size of the differences in effect," as well as determining the "estimated size of the effect [and] the confidence limits around those estimates" (1). However, with the expansive scope of our guidelines, performing meta-analysis for each outcome is not feasible. Our transplant guideline has almost 250 specific recommendations. We restricted the number of topics with full evidence profiles, but the guideline still includes 21 evidence profiles, which combined would contain over 200 potential meta-analyses (one per intervention-outcome pair). For any systematic review, even if unlimited time and resources were available, meta-analysis is often inappropriate due to limitations of the evidence or clinical heterogeneity of the studies. With few exceptions, we do not perform de novo meta-analyses for the workgroups, but without the meta-analyses, judging consistency and estimating overall effect sizes and variability becomes a more subjective process.

To assess the quality of a body of evidence, it is necessary to grade the quality of the individual studies for each outcome. The GRADE Working Group provides little guidance on how to grade the quality of individual studies, which is reasonable given the lack of consensus on the best approach to take. We use a 3-level ranking of study quality (good, fair, poor) based on a range of standard and topic-specific features that may result in biased or inaccurate results. This approach has also been adopted for Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ's) Comparative Effectiveness Reviews (8). Whether using this or score-based systems to grade study quality, the process is intrinsically subjective. Further subjectivity and arbitrary decision-making occurs when aggregating the quality grades from individual studies into a summary grade to express whether there are serious, very serious, or no limitations to the methodological quality of a body of evidence. For example, it is problematic to summarize the overall methodological quality of one large, good quality study, one small, fair quality study, and three poor quality studies. There is no simple system to derive a grade for methodological quality of a body of evidence; thus, we aim to achieve consensus among the methodologists and guideline workgroup members.

In the GRADE system, outcomes are ranked by clinical importance to weigh the individual effects on each outcome when deriving the overall net benefit. This ranking also impacts on the overall quality of the evidence, since the quality grades of important outcomes carry more weight. Our workgroups have had few problems with ranking the clinical outcomes of interest. However, difficulties have arisen when applying these rankings to decision making. This has been the case particularly when the "crucial" outcome is of lesser clinical importance than critical outcomes. While death will always be a critically important outcome, it may not be crucial when deciding whether to use an intervention. For example, when evaluating the use of human growth hormone in children with kidney transplants, the poor quality, equivocal evidence about its effect on the critical outcomes survival or graft rejection is given less weight than the better quality evidence about its effect on the important (but crucial for this intervention) outcomes, quality of life and height. Often, it is difficult for a workgroup to come to consensus about the relative meaning of different outcomes, the corresponding effect sizes, and the net effect. This is compounded in the global KDIGO guidelines since there is no particular point of reference for calibrating judgments about values, preferences, and costs.

In summary, evidence appraisal requires judgments and thus is susceptible to bias at several steps of synthesis and appraisal. Despite these issues, the Tufts Center and KDIGO have found that the GRADE system provides a structured and transparent approach to determine the quality of evidence, summarize effects, and grade the strength of recommendations. A key advantage to GRADE is that it prompts guideline developers to consider all relevant outcomes and to follow a consistent and comprehensive process in evaluating the quality of bodies of evidence. Furthermore, it has prompted our workgroups to be more complete, explicit, and transparent in discussing how they weigh the evidence and incorporate values and preferences to arrive at the recommendations.

While the GRADE system does not remove subjectivity or potential bias from the guideline development process, nor the need for ad hoc adaptations to fit different topics and different types of evidence, our experience using GRADE for guidelines on kidney disease has resulted in greater methodological rigor on the part of the Tufts Center methodologists, a better understanding of the guideline development steps by the workgroup domain experts, and a simpler nomenclature and convention for rating recommendations.


Ethan M. Balk, MD MPH
Boston, MA

Katrin Uhlig, MD, MS
Boston, MA


The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily state or reflect those of the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), or its contractor, ECRI Institute.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

Dr. Balk notes personal financial interests in QuantRx and Echo Therapeutics. He has worked on the following clinical practice guideline or quality measure development projects: Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guidelines (various on chronic kidney disease); Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative (various on chronic kidney disease); Society for Gynecological Surgeons (vaginal prolapse; dysfunctional uterine bleeding); American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (anticoagulation for hip and knee replacement). He is also a member of the Core Editorial Board for the National Guideline Clearinghouse and the National Quality Measures Clearinghouse.

Dr. Uhlig discloses that she is paid by the National Kidney Foundation for her work in the development of Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) clinical practice guidelines. She also serves as a paid consultant to the Society for Gynecological Surgeons Systematic Review Group in the development of systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines.


  1. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490.
  2. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Schunemann HJ et al. What is "quality of evidence" and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ. 2008;336:995-98.
  3. Uhlig K, Balk EM, Lau J, Levey AS. Clinical practice guidelines in nephrology—for worse or for better. Nephrol Dialysis Transplant. 2006;21:1145-53.
  4. Uhlig K, Macleod A, Craig J, Lau J, Levey AS, 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 Int. 2006;70:2058-65.
  5. Sawaya GF, Guirguis-Blake J, LeFevre M, Harris R, Petitti D, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Update on the methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: estimating certainty and magnitude of net benefit. Ann Intern Med. 2007;47(12):871-5.
  6. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) CKD-MBD Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, prevention, and treatment of chronic kidney disease-mineral and bone disorder (CKD-MBD). Kidney Int. 2009;76:S1-S130.
  7. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Transplant Work Group. KDIGO clinical practice guideline for the care of kidney transplant recipients. Am JTransplant 2009;9(Suppl 3):S1-S157.
  8. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods Reference Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, Version 1.0 [Draft posted Oct. 2007] Available at: External Web Site Policy (PDF Help). 2008. Rockville, MD.

PDF Help: Documents in PDF format require the Adobe Acrobat Reader®. If you experience problems with PDF documents, please download the latest version of the Reader® External Web Site Policy.

Make a Comment

All submitted comments will be reviewed by NGC Staff and NGC's Editorial Board who will elect what to publish on this web site.

* indicates required field

Submit a Comment

Do you have any Disclosures and/or Conflicts of Interest to report? *

Optional Information

About Commenting

The National Guideline Clearinghouse ™ (NGC), sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, welcomes responses to our posted expert commentaries on the NGC Web site.

All responses will be reviewed by NGC Staff and NGC's Editorial Board. Please keep your response brief and to the point. Responses must be presented in clear statements. We reserve the right to 1) publish your response, 2) copyedit your response, and 3) invite the author of the Expert Commentary to reply to a posted response. Excessively long or offensive and nonobjective responses will be disregarded.

Please complete the form if you wish to have your response made accessible to our users or if you wish for NGC to act on your response. NOTE: Providing such information however, does not ensure that your comment will be published or made available or that NGC will take any course of action. That will be determined by NGC staff in conjunction with our Editorial Board after review of the information you supply. Criteria for publication of responses to commentaries include:

  • Relevance of response to the subject of the commentary
  • Responses that provide a unique perspective to the commentary
  • Responses that offer an alternative view than the commentary
  • Responses that are clearly articulated
  • Responses that are neither excessively long or offensive and/or nonobjective
Form Approved    OMB No. 0935-0106    Exp. Date 11/30/2017

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 90 seconds per response, the estimated time required to complete the survey. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to: AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer Attention: PRA, Paperwork Reduction Project (0935-0106) AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.

Note: Responses accepted for publication will be posted to the NGC Web site along with the submitter's name. Current position or occupation, organizational affiliation, and disclosed potential conflicts of interest are optional and will be posted when provided. Email and other address are for internal use only and will not be published with responses or made publicly available.