Objective: The objective was to provide guidelines to clinicians for the evaluation, treatment, and prevention of vitamin D deficiency with an emphasis on the care of patients who are at risk for deficiency. Participants: The Task Force was composed of a Chair, six additional experts, and a methodologist. The Task Force received no corporate funding or remuneration. Consensus Process: Consensus was guided by systematic reviews of evidence and discussions during several conference calls and e-mail communications. The draft prepared by the Task Force was reviewed successively by The Endocrine Society's Clinical Guidelines Subcommittee, Clinical Affairs Core Committee, and cosponsoring associations, and it was posted on The Endocrine Society web site for member review. At each stage of review, the Task Force received written comments and incorporated needed changes. Conclusions: Considering that vitamin D deficiency is very common in all age groups and that few foods contain vitamin D, the Task Force recomme...

/pdf/evaluation-treatment-and-prevention-of-vitamin-d-deficiency-4wt9apc7iy.pdf

Evaluation, Treatment, and Prevention of Vitamin D Deficiency: an Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline

OBJECTIVE\nThe objective was to provide guidelines to clinicians for the evaluation, treatment, and prevention of vitamin D deficiency with an emphasis on the care of patients who are at risk for deficiency.\n\n\nPARTICIPANTS\nThe Task Force was composed of a Chair, six additional experts, and a methodologist. The Task Force received no corporate funding or remuneration.\n\n\nCONSENSUS PROCESS\nConsensus was guided by systematic reviews of evidence and discussions during several conference calls and e-mail communications. The draft prepared by the Task Force was reviewed successively by The Endocrine Society's Clinical Guidelines Subcommittee, Clinical Affairs Core Committee, and cosponsoring associations, and it was posted on The Endocrine Society web site for member review. At each stage of review, the Task Force received written comments and incorporated needed changes.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nConsidering that vitamin D deficiency is very common in all age groups and that few foods contain vitamin D, the Task Force recommended supplementation at suggested daily intake and tolerable upper limit levels, depending on age and clinical circumstances. The Task Force also suggested the measurement of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level by a reliable assay as the initial diagnostic test in patients at risk for deficiency. Treatment with either vitamin D(2) or vitamin D(3) was recommended for deficient patients. At the present time, there is not sufficient evidence to recommend screening individuals who are not at risk for deficiency or to prescribe vitamin D to attain the noncalcemic benefit for cardiovascular protection.

Evaluation, treatment, and prevention of vitamin D deficiency: An endocrine society clinical practice guideline (Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (2011) 96, (1911-1930))

tion’, implying that most patients ‘should’ receive a particular action. In contrast, level 2 guidelines are essentially ‘suggestions’ and are deemed to be ‘weak’ or discretionary, recognising that management decisions may vary in different clinical contexts. Each recommendation was further graded from A to D by the quality of evidence underpinning them, with grade A referring to a high quality of evidence whilst grade D recognised a ‘very low’ evidence base. The overall strength and quality of the supporting evidence is summarised in table 1 . The guidelines focused on 4 key domains: (1) AKI definition, (2) prevention and treatment of AKI, (3) contrastinduced AKI (CI-AKI) and (4) dialysis interventions for the treatment of AKI. The full summary of clinical practice statements is available at www.kdigo.org, but a few key recommendation statements will be highlighted here.

/pdf/kdigo-clinical-practice-guidelines-for-acute-kidney-injury-27tybolw7l.pdf

KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury.

There is no consensus definition of acute renal failure (ARF) in critically ill patients. More than 30 different definitions have been used in the literature, creating much confusion and making comparisons difficult. Similarly, strong debate exists on the validity and clinical relevance of animal models of ARF; on choices of fluid management and of end-points for trials of new interventions in this field; and on how information technology can be used to assist this process. Accordingly, we sought to review the available evidence, make recommendations and delineate key questions for future studies. We undertook a systematic review of the literature using Medline and PubMed searches. We determined a list of key questions and convened a 2-day consensus conference to develop summary statements via a series of alternating breakout and plenary sessions. In these sessions, we identified supporting evidence and generated recommendations and/or directions for future research. We found sufficient consensus on 47 questions to allow the development of recommendations. Importantly, we were able to develop a consensus definition for ARF. In some cases it was also possible to issue useful consensus recommendations for future investigations. We present a summary of the findings. (Full versions of the six workgroups' findings are available on the internet at http://www.ADQI.net
 ) Despite limited data, broad areas of consensus exist for the physiological and clinical principles needed to guide the development of consensus recommendations for defining ARF, selection of animal models, methods of monitoring fluid therapy, choice of physiological and clinical end-points for trials, and the possible role of information technology.

/pdf/acute-renal-failure-definition-outcome-measures-animal-3m4l0j5jsf.pdf

Acute renal failure - definition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information technology needs: the Second International Consensus Conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Group.

Objective
To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, “Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock,” published in 2004.

/pdf/surviving-sepsis-campaign-international-guidelines-for-lbjfg8yybt.pdf

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008.

Users of clinical practice guidelines and other recommendations need to know how much confidence they can place in the recommendations Systematic and explicit methods of making judgments can reduce errors and improve communication We have developed a system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that can be applied across a wide range of interventions and contexts In this article we present a summary of our approach from the perspective of a guideline user Judgments about the strength of a recommendation require consideration of the balance between benefits and harms, the quality of the evidence, translation of the evidence into specific circumstances, and the certainty of the baseline risk It is also important to consider costs (resource utilisation) before making a recommendation Inconsistencies among systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations reduce their potential to facilitate critical appraisal and improve communication of these judgments Our system for guiding these complex judgments balances the need for simplicity with the need for full and transparent consideration of all important issues

/pdf/grading-quality-of-evidence-and-strength-of-recommendations-4juchvwoau.pdf

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

The GRADE Working Group is developing and evaluating a common, sensible approach to grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in health care. In this article, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using letters, numbers, symbols or words to represent grades of evidence and recommendations. Using multiple strategies, we searched for comparative studies of alternative ways of representing ordered categories in any context. In addition, we contacted experts and reviewed theoretical work and qualitative research on how best to communicate grades of any kind quickly and clearly. We were unable to identify health care research that addressed, either directly or indirectly, the best way to present grades of evidence and recommendations. We found examples of symbols used by government, commercial and consumer organizations to communicate quality of evidence or strength of recommendations, but no comparative studies. Although a number of grading systems are used in health care and other fields, there is little or no evidence of how well various presentations are understood. Before promoting the use of specific symbols, numbers, letters or words, the extent to which the intended message is comprehended should be evaluated.

/pdf/letters-numbers-symbols-and-words-how-to-communicate-grades-17eb9pv0is.pdf

Dana Best

Papers

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

Letters, numbers, symbols and words: how to communicate grades of evidence and recommendations