Abstract
Largely bypassing discussion of industry’s influence, the chairs of the Kidney and Dialysis Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) advisory board and anemia work group and Dr. Uhlig review the structure and the process of guideline development that was used to write the opinion-based clinical practice recommendations (CPR) and evidence-based guidelines (EBG) (1). They propose that the CPR are more than mere opinion, even though they are based on a “quality of evidence (that) is low, very low, or missing” (2). Despite their claims, it is obvious that no process or analysis can ever compensate for absent or low-value evidence. Less obvious, if work groups are partial to an industry’s position, then overstating the validity of their CPR could provide great benefits to that industry. Indeed, …
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
