Search

Background Calciprotein particles (CPPs), colloidal mineral-protein nanoparticles, have emerged as potential mediators of phosphate toxicity in dialysis patients, with putative links to vascular calcification, endothelial dysfunction and inflammation. We hypothesized that phosphate binder therapy with sucroferric oxyhydroxide (SO) would reduce endogenous CPP levels and attenuate pro-calcific and pro-inflammatory effects of patient serum towards human vascular cells in vitro. Methods This secondary analysis of a randomised controlled crossover study compared the effect of 2-week phosphate binder washout with high-dose (2000 mg/day) and low-dose (250 mg/day) SO therapy in 28 haemodialysis patients on serum CPP levels, inflammatory cytokine/chemokine arrays and human aortic smooth muscle cell (HASMC) and coronary artery endothelial cell (HCAEC) bioassays. Results In our cohort (75% male, 62 ± 12 years) high-dose SO reduced primary (amorphous) and secondary (crystalline) CPP levels {−62% [95% confidence interval (CI) −76 to −44], P Conclusions High-dose SO reduced endogenous CPP formation in dialysis patients and yielded serum with attenuated pro-calcific and inflammatory effects in vitro.

International audience; OBJECTIVE: To identify and critically appraise risk prediction models for living donor solid organ transplant counselling.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically reviewed articles describing the development or validation of prognostic risk prediction models about living donor solid organ (kidney and liver) transplantation indexed in Medline until April 4(th) 2021. Models were eligible if intended to predict, at transplant counselling, any outcome occurring after transplantation or donation in recipients or donors. Duplicate study selection, data extraction, assessment for risk of bias and quality of reporting was done using the CHARMS checklist, PRISMA recommendations, PROBAST tool, and TRIPOD Statement.RESULTS: We screened 4691 titles and included 49 studies describing 68 models (35 kidney, 33 liver transplantation). We identified 49 new risk prediction models and 19 external validations of existing models. Most models predicted recipients outcomes (n=38, 75%), e.g., kidney graft loss (29%), or mortality of liver transplant recipients (55%). Many new models (n= 46, 94%) and external validations (n=17, 89%) had a high risk of bias because of methodological weaknesses. The quality of reporting was generally poor.CONCLUSION: We advise against applying poorly developed, reported or validated prediction models. Future studies could validate or update the few identified methodologically appropriate models.

ImportanceKidney transplant is considered beneficial in terms of survival compared with continued dialysis for patients with kidney failure. However, randomized clinical trials are infeasible, and available evidence from cohort studies is at high risk of bias.ObjectiveTo compare restricted mean survival times (RMSTs) between patients who underwent transplant and patients continuing dialysis across transplant candidate ages and depending on waiting time, applying target trial emulation methods.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsIn this retrospective cohort study, patients aged 18 years or older appearing on the wait list for their first single-organ deceased donor kidney transplant between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2018, in Austria were evaluated. Available data were obtained from the Austrian Dialysis and Transplant Registry and Eurotransplant and included repeated updates on wait-listing status and relevant covariates. Data were analyzed between August 1, 2019, and December 23, 2021.ExposuresA target trial was emulated in which patients were randomized to either receive the transplant immediately (treatment group) or to continue dialysis and never receive a transplant (control group) at each time an organ became available.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was time from transplant allocation to death. Effect sizes in terms of RMSTs were obtained using a sequential Cox approach.ResultsAmong the 4445 included patients (2974 men [66.9%]; mean [SD] age, 52.2 [13.2] years), transplant was associated with increased survival time across all considered ages compared with continuing dialysis and remaining on the wait list within a 10-year follow-up. The estimated RMST differences were 0.57 years (95% CI, –0.14 to 1.84 years) at age 20 years, 3.01 years (95% CI, 2.50 to 3.54 years) at age 60 years, and 2.48 years (95% CI, 1.88 to 3.04 years) at age 70 years. The survival benefit for patients who underwent transplant across ages was independent of waiting time.Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings of this study suggest that kidney transplant prolongs the survival time of persons with kidney failure across all candidate ages and waiting times.

Growing evidence shows diminished response to mRNA-based SARS-CoV‑2 vaccination in kidney transplant recipients. We aimed to investigate the seroconversion rate after a 3rd and 4th dose of mRNA vaccination in kidney transplant recipients without prior antibody response to two or three vaccination doses.This retrospective study included 324 prevalent kidney transplant recipients of a single tertiary transplantation center of which 157 remained seronegative, defined as anti-spike-RBD-IgG antibody titer 7.1 BAU/ml, after two doses of mRNA-based SARS-CoV‑2 vaccination. Maintenance immunosuppression was not changed. The median patient age was 60.6 years (IQR 51.4-68.1 years), 66.9% were male. Positivity for anti-spike-RBD-IgG (≥ 7.1 BAU/ml) was measured 4-5 weeks after administration of a 3rd and 4th vaccine dose.Seroconversion rates were 63.9% after a 3rd dose and 29.3% after a 4th dose of vaccine. Cumulative prevalence of seropositivity was 51.5% after 2 doses, 80.5% after 3 doses and 84.2% after 4 doses.In conclusion, seroconversion can be achieved in the majority of the kidney transplant recipients by administrating three or four doses of mRNA vaccine without changing maintenance immunosuppression.

Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) is a life-threatening disease that is caused by severe ADAMTS-13 deficiency. Immune-mediated TTP develops due to autoantibodies against ADAMTS-13, whereas congenital TTP is caused by mutations in the ADAMTS13 gene. Diagnostic possibilities and treatment options in TTP have emerged in recent years, which prompted the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) to publish clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of TTP in 2020. In this article, the European Renal Best Practice Working Group endorsed the ISTH guidelines and emphasizes a number of considerations, including the importance of rapid ADAMTS-13 activity testing, the use of rituximab and anti-von Willebrand factor therapies such as caplacizumab, that enhance the clinical applicability of the guidelines in Europe.

Graphical Abstract, Background Calcification propensity is associated with the risk for cardiovascular events and death in end-stage renal disease patients. Here we investigated the effect of lowering serum phosphate with oral phosphate binder therapy on calcification propensity. Methods We performed an open-label, randomized, controlled, crossover study in chronic haemodialysis patients with hyperphosphataemia. Patients (n = 39) were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either low-dose (250 mg/day) sucroferric oxyhydroxide (SO) followed by high-dose (2000 mg/day) SO or vice versa, with washout phases before and after SO treatment. The primary endpoint was changed in calcification propensity as measured by calciprotein particle formation time (T50 test) between washout and high-dose SO treatment in patients with ≥85% adherence to the prescribed SO dose (per-protocol analysis). Results In the primary per-protocol analysis (n = 28), 2000 mg/day SO treatment resulted in a mean increase in T50 of 66 min (95% CI 49–84 min, P

Background and Aims Kidney transplantation is considered to be the optimal treatment strategy for eligible end stage renal disease patients. However, the body of evidence to underpin the anticipated survival advantage for kidney transplant recipients is weak, as random treatment allocation to either kidney transplantation or remaining on dialysis is not feasible and previously reported results obtained from observational studies did not allow for causal interpretation. The aim of this study is to investigate survival differences of kidney transplantation compared to remaining waitlisted on dialysis across different transplant candidate ages applying causal inference methodology. Method We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Austrian Dialysis and Transplant Registry. We included all maintenance dialysis patients who were waitlisted for their first kidney transplant between January 2000 and December 2018 and utilized repeated updates on waitlisting status and relevant covariates. To estimate the causal effect of kidney transplantation compared to remaining waitlisted on all-cause survival we applied a sequential Cox approach mimicking a series of target trials, where each trial started at the time of a transplantation. In each of these emulated trials transplanted patients were classified as treated and patients with current active waitlisting status as controls, and the groups were balanced for covariates by inverse probability weighting. Controls who were transplanted at later times were censored but assigned to the treated group in a later target trial of the series. All trials were combined into a single data set and analyzed by a Cox proportional hazards model using inverse probability weighting also to adjust for artificial censoring. Additionally, we evaluated potential effect modifications by age at trial initiation (continuous) and stratified our analyses by time on waitlist before trial initiation (up to 1 year, between 1 and 2 years, and more than 2 years). Results are reported as hazard ratios (HRs), 5-year survival probabilities and restricted mean survival time together with respective bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs). Results The study cohort consisted of 4206 patients, of whom one third were women and the mean age was 52 years. In total, 3399 patients (81%) received a transplant and 1256 patients died. The median time from waitlisting to transplantation was 1.8 years. Overall, patients who received a kidney transplant had a significant survival benefit compared to patients who remained waitlisted (HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.43). Assessing survival across different ages showed a significant benefit for kidney transplantation for patients between 32 and 77 years of age at time of transplantation (e.g. HR at age of 70: 0.43, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.54). For older and younger patients our analysis did not provide definitive conclusions due to limited sample sizes. Transplanted patients had higher predicted survival and longer restricted mean survival time compared to patients remaining waitlisted. For example, within 5 years after engraftment, a transplanted patient 70 years of age at trial initiation had a 0.28 higher survival probability (95% CI 0.20-0.37) and was expected to gain 0.75 years of survival time. Our stratified analyses showed a survival benefit for kidney transplantation regardless of time on waitlist before trial initiation across all ages. Conclusion Our study provides robust evidence based on state-of-the-art causal inference methodology for increased survival after kidney transplantation across different transplant candidate ages and irrespective of time on waiting list.

Interpreting evidence in the arteriovenous (AV) access literature is challenged by the heterogeneity in terminology and the lack of standardization in outcomes. Below some of the terms used in this guideline are listed and how they have been interpreted in the context of this document. Because guideline development necessarily relies on aggregate data from systematic reviews and other individual studies, we can only hope to provide the user with conceptual definitions for certain concepts and outcome domains. At present, there is insufficient consensus to go beyond that point and define specific outcome measures or measurements. [...]

Objective To review and appraise the validity and usefulness of published and preprint reports of prediction models for prognosis of patients with covid-19, and for detecting people in the general population at increased risk of covid-19 infection or being admitted to hospital or dying with the disease.Design Living systematic review and critical appraisal by the covid-PRECISE (Precise Risk Estimation to optimise covid-19 Care for Infected or Suspected patients in diverse sEttings) group.Data sources PubMed and Embase through Ovid, up to 17 February 2021, supplemented with arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv up to 5 May 2020.Study selection Studies that developed or validated a multivariable covid-19 related prediction model.Data extraction At least two authors independently extracted data using the CHARMS (critical appraisal and data extraction for systematic reviews of prediction modelling studies) checklist; risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST (prediction model risk of bias assessment tool).Results 126 978 titles were screened, and 412 studies describing 731 new prediction models or validations were included. Of these 731, 125 were diagnostic models (including 75 based on medical imaging) and the remaining 606 were prognostic models for either identifying those at risk of covid-19 in the general population (13 models) or predicting diverse outcomes in those individuals with confirmed covid-19 (593 models). Owing to the widespread availability of diagnostic testing capacity after the summer of 2020, this living review has now focused on the prognostic models. Of these, 29 had low risk of bias, 32 had unclear risk of bias, and 545 had high risk of bias. The most common causes for high risk of bias were inadequate sample sizes (n=408, 67%) and inappropriate or incomplete evaluation of model performance (n=338, 56%). 381 models were newly developed, and 225 were external validations of existing models. The reported C indexes varied between 0.77 and 0.93 in development studies with low risk of bias, and between 0.56 and 0.78 in external validations with low risk of bias. The Qcovid models, the PRIEST score, Carr’s model, the ISARIC4C Deterioration model, and the Xie model showed adequate predictive performance in studies at low risk of bias. Details on all reviewed models are publicly available at https://www.covprecise.org/.Conclusion Prediction models for covid-19 entered the academic literature to support medical decision making at unprecedented speed and in large numbers. Most published prediction model studies were poorly reported and at high risk of bias such that their reported predictive performances are probably optimistic. Models with low risk of bias should be validated before clinical implementation, preferably through collaborative efforts to also allow an investigation of the heterogeneity in their performance across various populations and settings. Methodological guidance, as provided in this paper, should be followed because unreliable predictions could cause more harm than benefit in guiding clinical decisions. Finally, prediction modellers should adhere to the TRIPOD (transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis) reporting guideline.Systematic review registration Protocol https://osf.io/ehc47/, registration https://osf.io/wy245.Readers’ note This article is the final version of a living systematic review that has been updated over the past two years to reflect emerging evidence. This version is update 4 of the original article published on 7 April 2020 (BMJ 2020;369:m1328). Previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1328/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.

ObjectiveTo review and critically appraise published and preprint reports of models that aim to predict either (i) presence of existing COVID-19 infection, (ii) future complications in individuals already diagnosed with COVID-19, or (iii) models to identify individuals at high risk for COVID-19 in the general population.DesignRapid systematic review and critical appraisal of prediction models for diagnosis or prognosis of COVID-19 infection.Data sourcesPubMed, EMBASE via Ovid, Arxiv, medRxiv and bioRxiv until 24thMarch 2020.Study selectionStudies that developed or validated a multivariable COVID-19 related prediction model. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full text.Data extractionData from included studies were extracted independently by at least two authors based on the CHARMS checklist, and risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST. Data were extracted on various domains including the participants, predictors, outcomes, data analysis, and prediction model performance.Results2696 titles were screened. Of these, 27 studies describing 31 prediction models were included for data extraction and critical appraisal. We identified three models to predict hospital admission from pneumonia and other events (as a proxy for covid-19 pneumonia) in the general population; 18 diagnostic models to detect COVID-19 infection in symptomatic individuals (13 of which were machine learning utilising computed tomography (CT) results); and ten prognostic models for predicting mortality risk, progression to a severe state, or length of hospital stay. Only one of these studies used data on COVID-19 cases outside of China. Most reported predictors of presence of COVID-19 in suspected patients included age, body temperature, and signs and symptoms. Most reported predictors of severe prognosis in infected patients included age, sex, features derived from CT, C-reactive protein, lactic dehydrogenase, and lymphocyte count.Estimated C-index estimates for the prediction models ranged from 0.73 to 0.81 in those for the general population (reported for all 3 general population models), from 0.81 to > 0.99 in those for diagnosis (reported for 13 of the 18 diagnostic models), and from 0.85 to 0.98 in those for prognosis (reported for 6 of the 10 prognostic models). All studies were rated at high risk of bias, mostly because of non-representative selection of control patients, exclusion of patients who had not experienced the event of interest by the end of the study, and poor statistical analysis, including high risk of model overfitting. Reporting quality varied substantially between studies. A description of the study population and intended use of the models was absent in almost all reports, and calibration of predictions was rarely assessed.ConclusionCOVID-19 related prediction models are quickly entering the academic literature, to support medical decision making at a time where this is urgently needed. Our review indicates proposed models are poorly reported and at high risk of bias. Thus, their reported performance is likely optimistic and using them to support medical decision making is not advised. We call for immediate sharing of the individual participant data from COVID-19 studies to support collaborative efforts in building more rigorously developed prediction models and validating (evaluating) existing models. The aforementioned predictors identified in multiple included studies could be considered as candidate predictors for new models. We also stress the need to follow methodological guidance when developing and validating prediction models, as unreliable predictions may cause more harm than benefit when used to guide clinical decisions. Finally, studies should adhere to the TRIPOD statement to facilitate validating, appraising, advocating and clinically using the reported models.Systematic review registration protocolosf.io/ehc47/,registration: osf.io/wy245Summary boxesWhat is already known on this topic-The sharp recent increase in COVID-19 infections has put a strain on healthcare systems worldwide, necessitating efficient early detection, diagnosis of patients suspected of the infection and prognostication of COVID-19 confirmed cases.-Viral nucleic acid testing and chest CT are standard methods for diagnosing COVID-19, but are time-consuming.-Earlier reports suggest that the elderly, patients with comorbidity (COPD, cardiovascular disease, hypertension), and patients presenting with dyspnoea are vulnerable to more severe morbidity and mortality after COVID-19 infection.What this study adds-We identified three models to predict hospital admission from pneumonia and other events (as a proxy for COVID-19 pneumonia) in the general population.-We identified 18 diagnostic models for COVID-19 detection in symptomatic patients.-13 of these were machine learning models based on CT images.-We identified ten prognostic models for COVID-19 infected patients, of which six aimed to predict mortality risk in confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients, two aimed to predict progression to a severe or critical state, and two aimed to predict a hospital stay of more than 10 days from admission.-Included studies were poorly reported compromising their subsequent appraisal, and recommendation for use in daily practice. All studies were appraised at high risk of bias, raising concern that the models may be flawed and perform poorly when applied in practice, such that their predictions may be unreliable.

Pre-emptive kidney transplantation is the recommended strategy for patients with end-stage renal failure in all guidelines [Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO), The Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplantation Registry (ANZDATA), European Renal Best Practice Guideline (ERBP), British Transplant Society (BTS)]. This recommendation is intuitive and based on few older studies with considerable limitations. In addition, there is conflicting evidence as to whether the duration of dialysis vintage impacts on graft and patient survival after transplantation. The objective of this structured review was to critically review the published evidence on dialysis vintage and outcomes by including the most recent papers on that topic. We searched Medline using keywords for kidney transplantation, pre-emptive, dialysis vintage and relevant outcomes, and found 14 eligible cohort studies. The best evidence was found for pre-emptive transplantation, which was found to be associated with a lower risk of actual graft loss (including death as event) compared with non-pre-emptive transplantation. When only patients were considered that have been registered pre-emptively but then received or did not receive a pre-emptive transplant, the association with functional graft survival (excluding death as event) was only marginal. Dialysis vintage had a graded association with patient survival in most of the studies, but an unclear estimate with functional graft survival. Older studies also found an association of dialysis vintage with death-censored graft survival, but this association is likely confounded by selection and the competing risk of death and was no longer observed in recent eras, i.e. in transplants performed in the last decade. In summary, the recommendation for pre-emptive kidney transplantation for optimal patient and graft survival remains valid even in recent periods but the association of dialysis vintage after dialysis initiation with death-censored graft survival is less clear. The association of dialysis vintage with mortality after transplantation depends on the median duration of dialysis of the wait-listed population as well as acceptance rates for transplantation, and may thus be country specific. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to advocate pre-emptive kidney transplantation in all age groups. What remains unsolved is the selection issues since the reasons for longer waiting time on dialysis are difficult to capture in retrospective observational studies, and lead time as well as immortal time bias may have confounded the mortality data.

Summary Most research in transplant medicine includes statistical analysis of observed data. Too often authors solely rely on P‐values derived by statistical tests to answer their research questions. A P‐value smaller than 0.05 is typically used to declare “statistical significance” and hence, “proves” that, for example, an intervention has an effect on the outcome of interest. Especially in observational studies, such an approach is highly problematic and can lead to false conclusions. Instead, adequate estimates of the observed size of the effect, for example, expressed as the risk difference, the relative risk or the hazard ratio, should be reported. These effect size measures have to be accompanied with an estimate of their precision, like a 95% confidence interval. Such a duo of effect size measure and confidence interval can then be used to answer the important question of clinical relevance.

Summary Although separate prediction models for donors and recipients were previously published, we identified a need to predict outcomes of donor/recipient simultaneously, as they are clearly not independent of each other. We used characteristics from transplantations performed at the Oslo University Hospital from 1854 live donors and from 837 recipients of a live donor kidney transplant to derive Cox models for predicting donor mortality up to 20 years, and recipient death, and graft loss up to 10 years. The models were developed using the multivariable fractional polynomials algorithm optimizing Akaike’s information criterion, and optimism‐corrected performance was assessed. Age, year of donation, smoking status, cholesterol and creatinine were selected to predict donor mortality (C‐statistic of 0.81). Linear predictors for donor mortality served as summary of donor prognosis in recipient models. Age, sex, year of transplantation, dialysis vintage, primary renal disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease and HLA mismatch were selected to predict recipient mortality (C‐statistic of 0.77). Age, dialysis vintage, linear predictor of donor mortality, HLA mismatch, peripheral vascular disease and heart disease were selected to predict graft loss (C‐statistic of 0.66). Our prediction models inform decision‐making at the time of transplant counselling and are implemented as online calculators.

Background Renal loss of potassium (K+) and magnesium (Mg2+) in salt losing tubulopathies (SLT) leads to significantly reduced Quality of Life (QoL) and higher risks of cardiac arrhythmia. The normalization of K+ is currently the most widely accepted treatment target, however in even excellently designed RCTs the increase of K+ was only mild and rarely normalized. These findings question the role of K+ as the ideal marker of potassium homeostasis in SLT. Aim of this hypothesis-generating study was to define surrogate endpoints for future treatment trials in SLT in terms of their usefulness to determine QoL and important clinical outcomes. Methods Within this prospective cross-sectional study including 11 patients with SLTs we assessed the biochemical, clinical and cardiological parameters and their relationship with QoL (RAND SF-36). The primary hypothesis was that QoL would be more dependent of higher aldosterone concentration, assessed by the transtubular-potassium-gradient (TTKG). Correlations were evaluated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Results Included patients were mainly female (82%, mean age 34 ± 12 years). Serum K+ and Mg2+ was 3.3 ± 0.6 mmol/l and 0.7 ± 0.1 mmol/l (mean ± SD). TTKG was 9.5/3.4–20.2 (median/range). While dimensions of mental health mostly correlated with serum Mg2+ (r = 0.68, p = 0.04) and K+ (r = 0.55, p = 0.08), better physical health was associated with lower aldosterone levels (r = -0.61, p = 0.06). TTKG was neither associated with aldosterone levels nor with QoL parameters. No relevant abnormalities were observed in neither 24 h-ECG nor echocardiography. Conclusions Hyperaldosteronism, K+ and Mg2+ were the most important parameters of QoL. TTKG was no suitable marker for hyperaldosteronism or QoL. Future confirmatory studies in SLT should assess QoL as well as aldosterone, K+ and Mg2+.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is common and is associated with increased mortality, morbidity and cost. However, insufficient high-quality trial data are available to answer many relevant clinical questions in this field. In addition, a wide range of variable outcomes are used in studies, and often they are incompletely reported. Furthermore, there is a lack of patient-relevant outcomes, such as mortality, morbidity, quality of life, pain, need for dialysis or costs. Common problems with outcome reporting are as follows: choosing the wrong domains to measure; within domains, choosing the wrong measures (invalid surrogates, composite, non-patient relevant); within measures, choosing the wrong/variable metrics; and within metrics, choosing variable presentation methods. With this article, we aim to underline why standardized outcome reporting is key to achieving evidence-based guidance and improving clinical care for patients; highlight the frameworks available for achieving core outcome sets; and starting from these frameworks, we propose steps needed to develop a core outcome set in the field of CKD. We hope that standardized core outcome sets for nephrology will lead to the most important outcome of guideline production, improving outcomes for our patients.

Background and objectives Historically, length of pretransplant dialysis was associated with premature graft loss and mortality after kidney transplantation, but with recent advancements in RRT it is unclear whether this negative association still exists. Design, setting, participants, &measurements This is a retrospective cohort study evaluating 6979 first kidney allograft recipients from the Austrian Registry transplanted between 1990 and 2013. Duration of pretransplant dialysis treatment was used as categoric predictor classified by tertiles of the distribution of time on dialysis. A separate category for pre-emptive transplantation was added and defined as kidney transplantation without any dialysis preceding the transplant. Outcomes were death-censored graft loss, all-cause mortality, and the composite of both. Results Median duration of follow-up was 8.2 years, and 1866 graft losses and 2407 deaths occurred during the study period. Pre-emptive transplantation was associated with a lower risk of graft loss (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.59 to 0.98), but not in subgroup analyses excluding living transplants and transplants performed since 2000. The association between dialysis duration and graft loss did not depend on the year of transplantation ( P =0.40) or donor source ( P =0.92). Longer waiting time on dialysis was not associated with a higher rate of graft loss, but the rate of death was higher in patients on pretransplant dialysis for >1.5 years (hazard ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.43 to 1.83) compared with pretransplant dialysis for Conclusions Our findings support the evidence that pre-emptive transplantation is associated with superior graft survival compared with pretransplant dialysis, although this association was weaker in transplants performed since 2000. However, our analysis shows that length of dialysis was no longer associated with a higher rate of graft loss, although longer waiting times on dialysis were still associated with a higher rate of death.

Background : Chronic (present > 48 hours) non-hypovolaemic hyponatraemia occurs frequently, can be caused by various conditions, and is associated with shorter survival and longer hospital stays. Many treatments, such as fluid restriction or vasopressin receptor antagonists can be used to improve the hyponatraemia, but whether that translates into improved patient-important outcomes is less certain. Objectives : This review aimed to 1) look at the benefits and harms of interventions for chronic non-hypovolaemic hypotonic hyponatraemia when compared with placebo, no treatment or head-to-head; and 2) determine if benefits and harms vary in absolute or relative terms dependent on the specific compound within a drug class, on the dosage used, or the underlying disorder causing the hyponatraemia. Search methods : We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 1 December 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also screened the reference lists of potentially relevant studies, contacted authors, and screened the websites of regulatory agencies. Selection criteria : We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared the effects of any intervention with placebo, no treatment, standard care, or any other intervention in patients with chronic non-hypovolaemic hypotonic hyponatraemia. We also included subgroups with hyponatraemia from studies with broader inclusion criteria (e.g. people with chronic heart failure or people with cirrhosis with or without hyponatraemia), provided we could obtain outcomes for participants with hyponatraemia from the report or the study authors. Data collection and analysis : Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We expressed treatment effects as mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes (health-related quality of life, length of hospital stay, change from baseline in serum sodium concentration, cognitive function), and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes (death, response and rapid increase in serum sodium concentration, hypernatraemia, polyuria, hypotension, acute kidney injury, liver function abnormalities) together with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main results : We identified 35 studies, enrolling 3429 participants. Twenty-eight studies (3189 participants) compared a vasopressin receptor antagonist versus placebo, usual care, no treatment, or fluid restriction. In adults with chronic, non-hypovolaemic hypotonic hyponatraemia, vasopressin receptor antagonists have uncertain effects on death at six months (15 studies, 2330 participants: RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.33) due to risk of selective reporting and serious imprecision; and on health-related quality of life because results are at serious risk of performance, selective reporting and attrition bias, and suffer from indirectness related to the validity of the Short Form Health Survey (SF -12) in the setting of hyponatraemia. Vasopressin receptor antagonists may reduce hospital stay (low certainty evidence due to risk of performance bias and imprecision) (3 studies, 610 participants: MD-1.63 days, 95% CI -2.96 to -0.30), and may make little or no difference to cognitive function (low certainty evidence due to indirectness and imprecision). Vasopressin receptor antagonists probably increase the intermediate outcome of serum sodium concentration (21 studies, 2641 participants: MD 4.17 mmol/L, 95% CI 3.18 to 5.16), corresponding to two and a half as many people having a 5 to 6 mmol/L increase in sodium concentration compared with placebo at 4 to 180 days (moderate certainty evidence due to risk of attrition bias) (18 studies, 2014 participants: RR 2.49, 95% CI 1.95 to 3.18). But they probably also increase the risk of rapid serum sodium correction - most commonly defined as > 12 mmol/L/d (moderate certainty evidence due to indirectness) (14 studies, 2058 participants: RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.40) and commonly cause side-effects such as thirst (13 studies, 1666 participants: OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.80 to 4.27) and polyuria (6 studies, 1272 participants): RR 4.69, 95% CI 1.59 to 13.85) (high certainty evidence). The potential for liver toxicity remains uncertain due to large imprecision. Effects were generally consistent across the different agents, suggesting class effect. Data for other interventions such as fluid restriction, urea, mannitol, loop diuretics, corticosteroids, demeclocycline, lithium and phenytoin were largely absent. Authors' conclusions : In people with chronic hyponatraemia, vasopressin receptor antagonists modestly raise serum sodium concentration at the cost of a 3% increased risk of it being rapid. To date there is very low certainty evidence for patient-important outcomes; the effects on mortality and health-related quality of life are unclear and do not rule out appreciable benefit or harm; there does not appear to be an important effect on cognitive function, but hospital stay may be slightly shorter, although available data are limited. Treatment decisions must weigh the value of an increase in serum sodium concentration against its short-term risks and unknown effects on patient-important outcomes. Evidence for other treatments is largely absent. Further studies assessing standard treatments such as fluid restriction or urea against placebo and one-another would inform practice and are warranted. Given the limited available evidence for patient-important outcomes, any study should include these outcomes in a standardised manner.

Background: The efficacy of remote ischaemic conditioning in clinical trials of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or elective percutaneous coronary intervention is controversial. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse whether remote ischaemic conditioning reduces myocardial damage in those patients. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from inception until December 2017 for randomised clinical trials evaluating remote ischaemic conditioning versus a control group. Two independent reviewers extracted data of 23 trials (2118 patients with STEMI; 2048 patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention) which were meta-analysed using random-effects models. Results: Remote ischaemic conditioning reduced infarct size in STEMI patients when assessed by imaging (mean difference of infarct size as percentage of left ventricle −2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) –4.37 to −0.48; P=0.01; I2=44%; n=925) or biomarkers related to myocardial injury (peak values of cardiac biomarker release reported as standardised mean difference −0.19, 95% CI −0.37 to −0.02; P=0.03; I2=58%; n=1483) and increased myocardial salvage index (mean difference 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.13; P=0.02; I2=49%; n= 636). Left ventricular ejection fraction was increased when assessed during the first days after STEMI (mean difference 1.53, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.83; P=0.02; I2=28%; n=1192). Remote ischaemic conditioning had no influence on biomarker values after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (standardised mean difference 0.06, 95% CI −0.17 to 0.30; P=0.59). Conclusions: Despite a statistically significant reduction of myocardial damage in STEMI patients, the magnitude of the reduction was small and a significant impact on clinical events is unlikely. With respect to elective percutaneous coronary intervention, remote ischaemic conditioning had no influence on myocardial injury and its use is not supported by our analysis.

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. 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). 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

Background Immunosuppressive regimens in renal transplantation frequently contain corticosteroids, but many centers withdraw steroids as a consequence of unwanted side effects of steroids. The optimal timing to withdraw steroids after transplantation, however, remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine an optimal time point following kidney transplantation that is associated with reduced mortality without jeopardizing the allograft to allow safe discontinuation of steroids. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study and computed a concatenated landmark-stratified Cox supermodel to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for mortality and graft loss using dynamic propensity score matching to adjust for confounding by indication. Results A total of 6070 first kidney transplant recipients in the Austrian Dialysis and Transplant Registry who were transplanted between 1990 and 2012 were evaluated and classified according to steroid treatment status throughout follow-up after kidney transplantation; 2142 patients were withdrawn from steroids during the study period. Overall, 1131 patients lost their graft and 821 patients in the study cohort died. Steroid withdrawal within 18 months after transplantation was associated with an increased rate of graft loss compared to steroid maintenance during that time (6 months after transplantation: HR = 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3 to 2.6; 18 months after transplantation: HR = 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.6; 24 months after transplantation: HR = 1.2; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.5), while mortality was not different between groups. Conclusions Our findings suggest that steroid withdrawal after anti-IL-2 induction in the first 18 months after transplantation is associated with an increased risk of allograft loss. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0772-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Steroid-sparing strategies have been attempted in recent decades to avoid morbidity from long-term steroid intake among kidney transplant recipients. Previous systematic reviews of steroid withdrawal after kidney transplantation have shown a significant increase in acute rejection. There are various protocols to withdraw steroids after kidney transplantation and their possible benefits or harms are subject to systematic review. This is an update of a review first published in 2009. Objectives To evaluate the benefits and harms of steroid withdrawal or avoidance for kidney transplant recipients. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 15 February 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Selection criteria All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which steroids were avoided or withdrawn at any time point after kidney transplantation were included. Data collection and analysis Assessment of risk of bias and data extraction was performed by two authors independently and disagreement resolved by discussion. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model and dichotomous outcomes were reported as relative risk (RR) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals. Main results We included 48 studies (224 reports) that involved 7803 randomised participants. Of these, three studies were conducted in children (346 participants). The 2009 review included 30 studies (94 reports, 5949 participants). Risk of bias was assessed as low for sequence generation in 19 studies and allocation concealment in 14 studies. Incomplete outcome data were adequately addressed in 22 studies and 37 were free of selective reporting. The 48 included studies evaluated three different comparisons: steroid avoidance or withdrawal compared with steroid maintenance, and steroid avoidance compared with steroid withdrawal. For the adult studies there was no significant difference in patient mortality either in studies comparing steroid withdrawal versus steroid maintenance (10 studies, 1913 participants, death at one year post transplantation: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.30) or in studies comparing steroid avoidance versus steroid maintenance (10 studies, 1462 participants, death at one year after transplantation: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.80). Similarly no significant difference in graft loss was found comparing steroid withdrawal versus steroid maintenance (8 studies, 1817 participants, graft loss excluding death with functioning graft at one year after transplantation: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.92) and comparing steroid avoidance versus steroid maintenance (7 studies, 1211 participants, graft loss excluding death with functioning graft at one year after transplantation: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.86). The risk of acute rejection significantly increased in patients treated with steroids for less than 14 days after transplantation (7 studies, 835 participants: RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.30) and in patients who were withdrawn from steroids at a later time point after transplantation (10 studies, 1913 participants, RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.61). There was no evidence to suggest a difference in harmful events, such as infection and malignancy, in adult kidney transplant recipients. The effect of steroid withdrawal in children is unclear. Authors' conclusions This updated review increases the evidence that steroid avoidance and withdrawal after kidney transplantation significantly increase the risk of acute rejection. There was no evidence to suggest a difference in patient mortality or graft loss up to five year after transplantation, but long-term consequences of steroid avoidance and withdrawal remain unclear until today, because prospective long-term studies have not been conducted.

Background Patients undergoing hemodialysis and kidney graft recipients are high-risk populations for cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23), osteoprotegerin (OPG), RANK ligand, osteopontin (OPN), Klotho protein and bone morphogenetic protein-7 (BMP-7) are bone- and vascular-derived molecular biomarkers that have been shown to be associated with cardiovascular surrogate end points; however, currently available data on the prognostic value of these biomarkers is inconsistent. The aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis in order to summarize the available evidence on the association of molecular biomarkers with mortality in individuals undergoing hemodialysis and renal transplant patients. Methods Two databases (MEDLINE and Embase) were systematically searched. Studies were eligible if the association of biomarker and mortality was reported as time-to-event data [hazard Ratio (HR)] or as effect size with a fixed time of follow-up [odds Ratio (OR)]. Abstracted HRs were converted onto a standard scale of effect and combined using a random effects model. Results From a total of 1170 studies identified in initial searches, 21 met the inclusion criteria. In hemodialysis patients, comparing the lower third with the upper third of baseline FGF23 distribution, pooled HRs (95% confidence intervals) were 1.94 (1.47, 2.56) for all-cause mortality and 2.4 (1.64, 3.51) for cardiovascular mortality. For the same comparison of baseline OPG distribution, pooled HRs were 1.8 (0.95, 3.39) for all-cause mortality and 2.53 (1.29, 4.94) for cardiovascular mortality. Reported risk estimates of RANK ligand, OPN, Klotho protein and BMP-7 were not suitable for pooling; however, only Klotho protein was significantly related to mortality. For kidney graft recipients, four studies that investigated the relationship of FGF23 and OPG with mortality were identified, all of which reported a significant association. Conclusions In hemodialysis patients, FGF23 is a predictor of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, whereas the predictive value of OPG is restricted to cardiovascular mortality. Further studies are needed in order to gain insight into the prognostic value of these biomarkers in renal transplant recipients.

Risk prediction models are useful for identifying kidney recipients at high risk of graft failure, thus optimizing clinical care. Our objective was to systematically review the models that have been recently developed and validated to predict graft failure in kidney transplantation recipients. We used PubMed and Scopus to search for English, German and French language articles published in 2005-15. We selected studies that developed and validated a new risk prediction model for graft failure after kidney transplantation, or validated an existing model with or without updating the model. Data on recipient characteristics and predictors, as well as modelling and validation methods were extracted. In total, 39 articles met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 34 developed and validated a new risk prediction model and 5 validated an existing one with or without updating the model. The most frequently predicted outcome was graft failure, defined as dialysis, re-transplantation or death with functioning graft. Most studies used the Cox model. There was substantial variability in predictors used. In total, 25 studies used predictors measured at transplantation only, and 14 studies used predictors also measured after transplantation. Discrimination performance was reported in 87% of studies, while calibration was reported in 56%. Performance indicators were estimated using both internal and external validation in 13 studies, and using external validation only in 6 studies. Several prediction models for kidney graft failure in adults have been published. Our study highlights the need to better account for competing risks when applicable in such studies, and to adequately account for post-transplant measures of predictors in studies aiming at improving monitoring of kidney transplant recipients.

Eur J Clin Invest 2010; 40 (6): 552–560 Abstract Background Renal reabsorption of inorganic phosphate is critical for the maintenance of phosphate homeostasis. The sodium dependent phosphate cotransporters NaPi-IIa and NaPi-IIc have been identified to fulfill this task at the brush border membrane of proximal tubule cells. Various factors including dietary phosphate intake, parathyroid hormone, or the so called phosphatonins such as FGF23 have been shown to regulate activity of these transporters. Design This review seeks to give an update on our current knowledge about regulatory mechanisms involved in human renal phosphate reabsorption. Results Recently, an increasing number of genes have been identified that are directly associated with inherited phosphate wasting disorders (Klotho, PHEX, DMP1 and NHERF1). Several of these genes are predominantly expressed by osteocytes and osteoclasts in the bone suggesting indispensable signalling pathways between kidneys and the skeleton. Conclusion In this review, the affected gene products in these inherited hypophosphataemias and their contribution to phosphate homeostasis are discussed.

This position statement brings up guidance on pre-emptive kidney transplantation from living donors. The provided guid- ance is based on a systematic review of the literature.

International audience; The prime mission of European Renal Best Practice (ERBP) is to improve the outcome of patients with kidney disease in a sustainable way through enhancing the availability of the knowledge on the management of these patients in a format that stimulates its use in clinical practice in Europe. A key activity is to produce clinical practice guidelines to help clinicians make the healthcare decisions they face. To further improve the quality and validity of its clinical practice guidelines, ERBP has revised its guideline development process. The present document outlines the principles of ERBP's 10-step approach. Important features include standard procedures for selecting topics, for assembling the guideline development group, for choosing and formulating questions, for finding, appraising and summarizing the evidence, for generating recommendations, for preparing reports and organizing peer review. ERBP has adopted the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system for rating the quality of the evidence and strength of recommendations and has addressed implementation in the development process by integrating the GuideLine Implementability Appraisal tool. Ultimately, it is anticipated that these changes will not only further improve the quality of the guideline development process, but also enhance the quality of care and improve outcomes of patients with kidney disease across Europe.

Medical management of patients with kidney disease is complex and resource intensive. In times of limited health care budgets, economic evaluations have become more important over the past few years in identifying interventions with a beneficial cost-effectiveness to maximize the benefits served from the available resources. However, integrating evidence from health-economic evaluations into clinical practice guidelines remains a challenge. European Renal Best Practice (ERBP), the official guideline body of the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) herewith presents some lines of thought that need consideration in the discussion on incorporating health-economic considerations into clinical guideline development.

The vast majority of glomerular filtrated phosphate is reabsorbed in the proximal tubule. Posttransplant phosphaturia is common and aggravated by sirolimus immunosuppression. The cause of sirolimus induced phosphaturia however remains elusive. Male Wistar rats received sirolimus or vehicle for 2 or 7 days (1.5mg/kg). The urine phosphate/creatinine ratio was higher and serum phosphate was lower in sirolimus treated rats, fractional excretion of phosphate was elevated and renal tubular phosphate reabsorption was reduced suggesting a renal cause for hypophosphatemia. PTH was lower in sirolimus treated rats. FGF 23 levels were unchanged at day 2 but lower in sirolimus treated rats after 7 days. Brush border membrane vesicle phosphate uptake was not altered in sirolimus treated groups or by direct incubation with sirolimus. mRNA, protein abundance, and subcellular transporter distribution of NaPi-IIa, Pit-2 and NHE3 were not different between groups but NaPi-IIc mRNA expression was lower at day 7. Transcriptome analyses revealed candidate genes that could be involved in the phosphaturic response. Sirolimus caused a selective renal phosphate leakage, which was not mediated by NaPi-IIa or NaPi-IIc regulation or localization. We hypothesize that another mechanism such as a basolateral phosphate transporter may be responsible for the sirolimus induced phosphaturia.

Background. Providing renal replacement therapy (RRT) for end-stage renal disease patients is resource intensive. Despite growing financial pressure in health care systems worldwide, cost-effectiveness studies of RRT modalities are scarce. Methods. We developed a Markov model of costs, quality of life and survival to compare three different assignment strategies to chronic RRT in Europe. Results. Mean annual treatment costs for haemodialysis were V43 600 during the first 12 months, V40 000 between 13 and 24 months and V40 600 beyond 25 months after initiation of treatment. Mean annual treatment costs for peritoneal dialysis were V25 900 during the first 12 months, V15 300 between 13 and 24 months and V20 500 beyond 25 months. Mean annual therapy costs for a kidney transplantation during the first 12 months were V50 900 from a living donor, V51 000 from a deceased donor, V17 200 between 13 and 24 months and V12 900 beyond 25 months after engraftment. Over the next 10 years in Austria with a population of 8 million people, increased assignment to peritoneal dialysis of 20% incident patients saved V26 million with a discount rate of 3% and gained 839 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); additionally, increasing renal transplants to 10% from live donations saved V38 million discounted and gained 2242 QALYs. Conclusions. Live donor renal transplantation is cost effective and associated with increase in QALYs. Therefore, preemptive live kidney transplantation should be promoted from a fiscal as well as medical point of view.

Background: Posttransplantation acute renal failure (ARF) occurs in roughly 25% of recipients of organs from deceased donors. Inflammation in the donor organ is associated with risk for ARF. Objective: To determine whether administering corticosteroids to deceased organ donors reduces the incidence and duration of ARF in organ recipients more than placebo. Design: Parallel, blocked randomized trial, performed between February 2006 and November 2008, with computer-generated randomization and centralized allocation. Investigators were masked to group assignment. (Controlled-trials.com registration number: ISRCTN78828338) Setting: 3 renal transplantation centers in Austria and Hungary. Patients: 306 deceased heart-beating donors and 455 renal transplant recipients. Interventions: Organ donors were administered an intravenous infusion of either 1000 mg of methylprednisolone (136 donors) or placebo (0.9% saline) (133 donors) at least 3 hours before organ harvesting. Measurements: Incidence of ARF, defined as more than 1 dialysis session in the first week after transplantation, was the primary end point. Secondary and other end points included duration of ARF and trajectories of serum creatinine level. The suppression of immune response and inflammation by the intervention was assessed in the donor organ on a genome-wide basis. Results: 52 of 238 recipients (22%) of kidneys from steroid-treated donors and 54 of 217 recipients (25%) of kidneys from placebo-treated donors had ARF (difference, 3 percentage points [95% CI, -11 to 5 percentage points]). One graft was lost on day 1 in each group, and 1 recipient in the placebo group died of cardiac arrest on day 2. The median duration of ARF was 5 days (interquartile range, 2 days) in the steroid group and 4 days (interquartile range, 2 days) in the placebo group (P = 0.31). The groups had similar trajectories of serum creatinine level in the first week (P = 0.72). Genomic analysis showed suppressed inflammation and immune response in kidney biopsies from deceased donors who received corticosteroids. Limitation: Donors and recipients were mainly white, and all were from 3 transplantation centers in central Europe, which may limit generalizability. Conclusion: Systemic suppression of inflammation in deceased donors by corticosteroids did not reduce the incidence or duration of posttransplantation ARF in allograft recipients. Primary Funding Source: Austrian Science Fund and Austrian Academy of Science.

A nonquantitative summary of the current evidence suggests that calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) minimization and also CNI-free protocols are safe and efficient when used after the initial 3 months post-transplantation. In fact, the largest study so far showed that low-dose CNI in combination with mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) and steroids performed better than standard dose cyclosporine A (CsA). If CsA is used in combination with a mammalian target of rapamycin-Inhibitor (mTOR-I) considerable dose reduction of both drugs is required. A better choice than using both drug groups in lower doses together may be the withdrawal of CsA from this combination after 3-12 months. Later withdrawals or conversions to an mTOR-I failed to show additional benefit in terms of graft function or survival but caused less post-transplant malignancies. With improved short- and medium-term outcomes, this entity will become more of an issue. In fact, in some areas of the world, nowadays malignancies are the leading cause of death.

Background Keeping track of progress and meeting deadlines can be difficult for organisations that simultaneously develop multiple guidelines involving multiple systematic review teams. Objectives To improve planning, organising and managing of guideline development projects by creating a standardised workflow checklist. Methods In a one-day meeting, the five guideline development methodologists, the chairman and the editorial assistant identified the main steps involved in the guideline development process. For each step, we identified specific tasks and ordered them chronologically. All decisions were made based on group consensus. The identified steps and tasks formed the basic elements of the workflow checklist. Results We identified the need for two separate checklists per guideline development project; one for overall workflow and one for each clinical question covered by the guideline. The overall guideline development workflow checklist comprised 42 tasks organised in 11 sequential steps, including items such as topic selection, composition of the guideline development group, and framing the questions. For each clinical question we identified 27 tasks organised in 8 sequential steps, excluding steps already covered by the overall workflow. Discussion This workflow checklist represents a first step in developing a standardised project management strategy to improve efficient management of the guideline development process. Further development of this tool involves selecting appropriate software for practical implementation applicable not only for our own means but also for those of other groups. Implications for Guideline Developers/Users We believe developing a standardised workflow checklist will improve efficient management of guideline development and allows transparent and up-to-date communication of its progress.

Background Standardised duplicate data extraction and tabulation can be challenging for organisations that develop multiple guidelines involving multiple and remote systematic review teams simultaneously. Objectives To develop a web-based tool for facilitating duplicate data extraction and efficient discrepancy resolution. Methods Based on previous experiences with word-processing and spreadsheet tools, European Renal Best Practice listed their system requirements and collaborated with a consultancy company to identify appropriate customisable software. Results We wanted the system to: be web-based, guide reviewers through a standardised data extraction form, be easy-to-use and manage, allow enough flexibility to accommodate different guideline topics, be free-of-charge and easily accessible from different locations without the need for downloading software. We identified a customer relationship management service, Salesforce, that allowed us to build a data extraction module using their backbone structure. It incorporates centralised management of multiple systematic reviews simultaneously, batch allocation of studies to individual reviewers, guided customised point-and-click data extraction, generation of tables to assist discrepancy resolution with easy export to a cvs-file extension format. Discussion This project represents a continuous effort to facilitate efficient and high-quality systematic reviewing with participation of our guideline development groups throughout the systematic reviewing process. A first version of the system is currently being evaluated. Implications for Guideline Developers/Users Customising existing software for guideline development purposes might be an attractive and inexpensive alternative to developing new tools for data extraction when full participation of the guideline development group in the systematic review process is desired.