Table 2| (Continued) Clinical questions and systematic review topics in the PICOM format www.kidney-international.org methods for guideline development studies; indirectness of the results, including uncertainty about the population, intervention, and outcomes measured in trials and their applicability to the clinical question of interest; imprecision in the evidence review results; and concerns about publication bias. For imprecision, data were benchmarked against optimal information size, low event rates in either arm, CIs that indicate appreciable bene t and harm (25% decrease and 25% increase in the outcome of interest), and sparse data (only 1 study), all indicating concerns about the precision of the results.388 The nal grade for the quality of the evidence for an outcome could be high, moderate, low, or very low (Table 3). For observational studies and other study types, it is possible for the quality of the evidence to be upgraded from a rating of low quality, according to the speci ed criteria. For further details on the GRADE approach for rating quality of the evidence, see Table 4. Summary of ndings (SoF) tables. The SoF tables were developed to include a description of the population and the intervention and comparator. In addition, the SoF tables included results from the data synthesis as relative and absolute effect estimates. The grading of the quality of the evidence for each critical and important outcome is also provided in the SoF table. The SoF tables were generated using MAGICapp, an online software application designed to support guideline development, and they are available in the Data Supplement Appendix C and Appendix D (https://kdigo.org/ guidelines/blood-pressure-in-ckd/). Developing the recommendations. The recommendations were drafted by the Work Group Co-Chairs and Work Group members. Recommendations were revised in a multistep process during a face-to-face meeting (New Orleans, LA, USA, January 2019) and by e-mail communication. 