If yes, do not downgrade for subgroup. If yes, do not downgrade for subgroup. If no, downgrade the quality for subgroup by 1 level. Are baseline characteristics by intervention and comparator groups provided in CKD subgroup? If yes, are there differences between groups? If no, do not downgrade for subgroup. If yes, downgrade by one level if differences are likely to have influenced results. Do not downgrade, if, on the judgment of the reviewer, differences are unlikely to have influenced results, or are properly accounted for in the analysis. If no, downgrade the quality for subgroup by 1 level. Final study quality for sub-group: A. Good (not downgraded) B. Fair (downgraded by 1 level) C. Poor (downgraded by 2 levels) Figure 3 | Grading the quality of CKD subgroups of non-CKD trials. CKD, chronic kidney disease; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate. methods for guideline development Grading the overall quality of evidence. The quality of the overall body of evidence was then determined on the basis of the quality grades for all outcomes of interest, taking into account explicit judgments about the relative importance of each outcome. The resulting four final categories for the quality of overall evidence were: A , B , C or D (Table 12). Assessment of the net health benefit across all important clinical outcomes. The net health benefit was determined on the basis of the anticipated balance of benefits and harms across all clinically important outcomes (Table 13). The assessment of net benefit also involved the judgment of the Work Group and the ERT. Developing the recommendations. Draft recommendation statements were developed by the Work Group Co-Chairs and Work Group members with input from all Work Group members. 