Coding: +: work product is indicated for the topic of interest; : work product is not indicated for the topic of interest. General population studies with a CKD subgroup are included. Table 10 | Classification of study quality Good quality Low risk of bias and no obvious reporting errors; complete reporting of data. Must be prospective. If study of intervention, must be RCT. Fair quality Moderate risk of bias, but problems with study or paper are unlikely to cause major bias. If study of intervention, must be prospective. Poor quality High risk of bias or cannot rule out possible significant biases. Poor methods, incomplete data, reporting errors. Prospective or retrospective. Abbreviation: RCT, randomized controlled trial. methods for guideline development consistency, clarity, thoroughness and precision, etc.). Each reported outcome was then evaluated and given an individual grade depending on the quality of reporting and methodo- logical issues specific to that outcome. However, the quality grade of an individual outcome could not exceed the quality grade for the overall study. Grading the Quality of Evidence and the Strength of a Guideline Recommendation A structured approach, based on GRADE108 110 and facili- tated by the use of evidence profiles, was used to grade the quality of the overall evidence and the strength of recommendations. For each topic, the discussion on grading of the quality of the evidence was led by the ERT, and the discussion regarding the strength of the recom- mendations was led by the Work Group Co-Chairs. The strength of a recommendation indicates the extent to which one can be confident that adherence to the recommendation will do more good than harm. 