Quality and consistency of clinical practice guidelines for the management of children on chronic dialysis

Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) Reflects Myocardial Inhomogeneities in Hemodialyzed Patients

Introduction

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are a leading cause of death in chronically hemodialyzed (HD) patients. In this group, inflammation exerts significant impact on the prevalence of CVD morbidity and mortality. Spatial QRS-T angle is an independent and strong predictor of CV events, including sudden cardiac death (SCD), both in general population and HD patients. Pathogenesis of widened QRS-T angle is complicated and is not well established.

Objectives

The study is aimed at evaluating whether inflammation process can contribute to the wide QRS-T angle. Patients and Methods. The retrospective study was performed on 183 HD patients. The control group consisted of 38 patients. Demographic, biochemical, vectorcardiographic, and echocardiographic data were evaluated in all patients. Inflammation process was expressed as neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), as well as C-reactive protein (CRP).

Results

Both NLR (3.40 vs. 1.95 (p < 0.0001)) and spatial QRS-T angle (50.76 vs. 93.56 (p < 0.001)) were higher in the examined group, compared to the control group. Similarly, CRP was higher in the examined group than in the control group (8.35 vs. 4.06 (p < 0.001), respectively). The QRS-T angle correlated with NLR, CRP, some structural echocardiographic parameters, parathormone (PTH), and calcium (Ca) concentrations. Multiple regression analysis showed that NLR is an independent QRS-T angle predictor (r = 0.498, p = 0.0027). The ROC curve analysis indicated the cut-off point of NLR equaled 4.59, where the sensitivity and specificity were the highest for predicting myocardial inhomogeneities expressed as widened QRS-T angle.

Conclusion

The NLR, as an inflammation marker, may indicate myocardial inhomogeneities in HD patients.

Diagnosis and management of non-dialysis chronic kidney disease in ambulatory care: a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines

Background

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is age-dependent and has a high prevalence in the general population. Most patients are managed in ambulatory care. This systematic review provides an updated overview of quality and content of international clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis and management of non-dialysis CKD relevant to patients in ambulatory care.

Methods

We identified guidelines published from 2012-to March 2018 in guideline portals, databases and by manual search. Methodological quality was assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument. Recommendations were extracted and evaluated.

Results

Eight hundred fifty-two publications were identified, 9 of which were eligible guidelines. Methodological quality ranged from 34 to 77%, with domains “scope and purpose” and “clarity of presentation” attaining highest and “applicability” lowest scores. Guidelines were similar in recommendations on CKD definition, screening of patients with diabetes and hypertension, blood pressure targets and referral of patients with progressive or stage G4 CKD. Definition of high risk groups and recommended tests in newly diagnosed CKD varied.

Conclusions

Guidelines quality ranged from moderate to high. Guidelines generally agreed on management of patients with high risk or advanced CKD, but varied in regarding the range of recommended measurements, the need for referrals to nephrology, monitoring intervals and comprehensiveness. More research is needed on efficient management of patients with low risk of CKD progression to end stage renal disease.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12882-018-1048-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Guideline appraisal with AGREE II: online survey of the potential influence of AGREE II items on overall assessment of guideline quality and recommendation for use

Background

The AGREE II instrument is the most commonly used guideline appraisal tool. It includes 23 appraisal criteria (items) organized within six domains. AGREE II also includes two overall assessments (overall guideline quality, recommendation for use). Our aim was to investigate how strongly the 23 AGREE II items influence the two overall assessments.

Methods

An online survey of authors of publications on guideline appraisals with AGREE II and guideline users from a German scientific network was conducted between 10th February 2015 and 30th March 2015. Participants were asked to rate the influence of the AGREE II items on a Likert scale (0 = no influence to 5 = very strong influence). The frequencies of responses and their dispersion were presented descriptively.

Results

Fifty-eight of the 376 persons contacted (15.4%) participated in the survey and the data of the 51 respondents with prior knowledge of AGREE II were analysed. Items 7–12 of Domain 3 (rigour of development) and both items of Domain 6 (editorial independence) had the strongest influence on the two overall assessments. In addition, Items 15–17 (clarity of presentation) had a strong influence on the recommendation for use. Great variations were shown for the other items. The main limitation of the survey is the low response rate.

Conclusions

In guideline appraisals using AGREE II, items representing rigour of guideline development and editorial independence seem to have the strongest influence on the two overall assessments. In order to ensure a transparent approach to reaching the overall assessments, we suggest the inclusion of a recommendation in the AGREE II user manual on how to consider item and domain scores. For instance, the manual could include an a-priori weighting of those items and domains that should have the strongest influence on the two overall assessments. The relevance of these assessments within AGREE II could thereby be further specified.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-2954-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Guideline appraisal with AGREE II: Systematic review of the current evidence on how users handle the 2 overall assessments

INTRODUCTION

The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument is the most commonly used guideline appraisal tool. It includes 23 appraisal criteria (items) organized within 6 domains and 2 overall assessments (1. overall guideline quality; 2. recommendation for use). The aim of this systematic review was twofold. Firstly, to investigate how often AGREE II users conduct the 2 overall assessments. Secondly, to investigate the influence of the 6 domain scores on each of the 2 overall assessments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic bibliographic search was conducted for publications reporting guideline appraisals with AGREE II. The impact of the 6 domain scores on the overall assessment of guideline quality was examined using a multiple linear regression model. Their impact on the recommendation for use (possible answers: "yes", "yes, with modifications", "no") was examined using a multinomial regression model.

RESULTS

118 relevant publications including 1453 guidelines were identified. 77.1% of the publications reported results for at least one overall assessment, but only 32.2% reported results for both overall assessments. The results of the regression analyses showed a statistically significant influence of all domains on overall guideline quality, with Domain 3 (rigour of development) having the strongest influence. For the recommendation for use, the results showed a significant influence of Domains 3 to 5 ("yes" vs. "no") and Domains 3 and 5 ("yes, with modifications" vs. "no").

CONCLUSIONS

The 2 overall assessments of AGREE II are underreported by guideline assessors. Domains 3 and 5 have the strongest influence on the results of the 2 overall assessments, while the other domains have a varying influence. Within a normative approach, our findings could be used as guidance for weighting individual domains in AGREE II to make the overall assessments more objective. Alternatively, a stronger content analysis of the individual domains could clarify their importance in terms of guideline quality. Moreover, AGREE II should require users to transparently present how they conducted the assessments.

End-stage renal disease in Japanese children: a nationwide survey during 2006-2011

BACKGROUND

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) in children is considered a rare, but serious condition. Epidemiological and demographic information on pediatric ESRD patients around the world is important to better understand this disease and to improve patient care. The Japanese Society for Pediatric Nephrology (JSPN) reported epidemiological and demographic data in 1998. Since then, however, there has been no nationwide survey on Japanese children with ESRD.

METHODS

The JSPN conducted a cross-sectional nationwide survey in 2012 to update information on the incidence, primary renal disease, initial treatment modalities, and survival in pediatric Japanese patients with ESRD aged less than 20 years during the period 2006-2011.

RESULTS

The average incidence of ESRD was 4.0 per million age-related population. Congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract were the most common cause of ESRD, present in 39.8 % of these patients. In addition, 12.2 % had focal segmental glomerulosclerosis and 5.9 % had glomerulonephritis. Initial treatment modalities in patients who commenced renal replacement therapy (RRT) consisted of peritoneal dialysis, hemodialysis, and pre-emptive transplantation (Tx) in 61.7, 16.0, and 22.3 %, respectively. The Japanese RRT mortality rate was 18.2 deaths per 1000 person-years of observation.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of ESRD is lower in Japanese children than in children of other high-income countries. Since 1998, notably, there has been a marked increase in pre-emptive Tx as an initial treatment modality for Japanese children with ESRD.

A survey on the methodological processes and policies of renal guideline groups as a first step to harmonize renal guidelines

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, several bodies produce renal guidelines, potentially leading to duplication of effort while other topics may remain uncovered. A collaborative work plan could improve efficiency and impact, but requires a common approved methodology. The aim of this study was to identify organizational and methodological similarities and differences among seven major renal guideline bodies to identify methodological barriers to a collaborative effort.

METHODS

An electronic 62-item survey with questions based on the Institute of Medicine standards for guidelines was completed by representatives of seven major organizations producing renal guidelines: the Canadian Society of Nephrology (CSN), European Renal Best Practice (ERBP), Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcome (KDIGO), Kidney Health Australia-Caring for Australians with Renal Insufficiency (KHA-CARI), Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative (KDOQI), Sociedad Latino-Americano de Nefrologia e Hipertension (SLANH) and United Kingdom Renal Association (UK-RA).

RESULTS

Five of the seven groups conduct systematic searches for evidence, two include detailed critical appraisal and all use the GRADE framework. Five have public review of the guideline draft. Guidelines are updated as new evidence comes up in all, and/or after a specified time frame has passed (N = 3). Commentaries or position statements on guidelines published by other groups are produced by five, with the ADAPTE framework (N = 1) and the AGREEII (N = 2) used by some. Funding is from their parent organizations (N = 5) or directly from industry (N = 2). None allow funders to influence topic selection or guideline content. The budgets to develop a full guideline vary from $2000 to $500 000. Guideline development groups vary in size from <5 (N = 1) to 13-20 persons (N = 3). Three explicitly seek patient perspectives, for example, by involving patients in the scoping process, and four incorporate health economic considerations. All provide training in methodology for guideline development groups and six make their methods public. All try to avoid overlapping topics already planned or published by others. There is no common conflict of interest policy.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is considerable commonality in methods and approaches in renal guideline development by the different organizations, although some procedural differences remain. As the financial and human resource costs of guideline production are high, a collaborative approach is required to maximize impact and develop a sustainable work plan. Coming to consensus on methods and procedures is the first step and appears feasible.