Prerelease review Describe how the guideline developer reviewed and/or tested the guidelines prior to release. The guideline had undergone internal review by the KDIGO Board in August 2012 and external public review in November 2012. Public review comments were compiled and fed back to the Work Group, which considered comments in its revision of the guideline. 12. Update plan State whether or not there is a plan to update the guideline and, if applicable, an expiration date for this version of the guideline. The requirement for an update will be assessed in five years from the publication date or earlier if important new evidence becomes available in the interim. Such evidence might, for example, lead to changes to the recommendations or may modify information provided on the balance between benefits and harms of a particular therapeutic intervention. methods for guideline development available evidence and the strength of that recommendation. However, Table 15 shows that the strength of a recommenda- tion is determined not only by the quality of the evidence but also by other, often complex judgments regarding the size of the net medical benefit (potential risks versus benefit), values, and preferences, and costs. Formal decision analyses includ- ing cost analysis were not conducted. Ungraded statements. This category was designed to allow the Work Group to issue general advice. Typically an ungraded statement meets the following criteria: it provides guidance based on common sense, it provides reminders of the obvious, and it is not sufficiently specific to allow for application of evidence to the issue and therefore it is not based on systematic evidence review. Common examples include recommendations about frequency of testing, referral to specialists, and routine medical care. We strove to minimize the use of ungraded recommendations. 