Recomendaciones del grupo GARIN para el tratamiento dietético de los pacientes con enfermedad renal crónica

AGREEing on Nutritional Management of Patients with CKD—A Quality Appraisal of the Available Guidelines

“…This domain evaluates all stages of the methodological development of each guideline review as well as information on the update process. The highest score can be observed in the KDOQI guidelines [24], whereas in the other guidelines many items of this domain were not included [16,17,[19][20][21][22]25,26] or were not satisfactorily described [18,23].…”

“…Irrelevant recommendations, hospital internal guidelines or recommendations referring only to subjects <18 years old were excluded. Finally, 11 clinical practice guidelines published from 2003 until 2020 were retrieved [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. Clinical practice guidelines by the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral nutrition (ASPEN) [16], the Dietitians Association of Australia (DAA) [17], the German Society for Nutritional Medicine (DGEM) [18], the European Best Practice Guidelines (EBPG) [19], the European Dialysis and Transplantation Nurses Association-European Renal Care Association (EDTNA-ERCA) [20], the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) [21,22], the Andalusian Group for Nutrition Reflection and Investigation (GARIN) group [23], the National Kidney foundation-Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (KDOQI) [24], the Italian Society of Nephrology-Association of Dieticians-Italian Association of Hemodialysis, Dialysis and Transplant (SIN-ANDID-ANED) [25], and the Renal Association [26] were reviewed and evaluated using the AGREE II tool.…”

“…Clinical practice guidelines developed by DGEM received the highest scores (100) [18]. High scores were also reported in seven clinical practice guidelines which scored >70% [17,[19][20][21][22][23][24] and three guidelines were determined to be of moderate quality [16,25,26]. None of the guidelines received a low score for this domain.…”

“…The majority of the clinical practice guidelines received high ratings in the domain of "scope and purpose", while six of them received a score ≥70% [17,18,[21][22][23][24]. Four guidelines received low scores [16,20,25,26] and the EBPG guideline received the lowest [19].…”

“…In this domain, none of the included guidelines were highly rated by the four reviewers. Five studies had rates of 40-70%, which translates into a moderate quality [16][17][18]24,25], whereas in the remaining six studies had rate scores <40%, leading to low-quality characterization [19][20][21][22][23]26]. Item 2b, "target population's views and preferences", was sufficiently stated in only two guidelines (DAA and SIN-ANDIN-ANED) [17,25].…”