CKD case review: compare patient conditions and guideline entries
Real sources · Illustrative request · Sample version
Customer question
Illustrative case discussion distinguishing original trial populations, recommendations, practice points and unresolved applicability conditions.
Which claims come from trials, recommendations or practice points, and what patient information is missing?
Locate studies and guidance separately, retaining versions and conditions for professional case review.
Source links for three questions
| Check / stage | Chart content |
|---|---|
| SGLT2 and CKD | DAPA-CKD 2020 → original population and endpoints |
| GFR estimation | KDIGO 2024 Recommendation 1.1.2.1 → recommendation and grade |
| Assessing chronicity | KDIGO 2024 Practice Point 1.1.3.2 → practice point |
| Next-version scan | Official notices → published versions distinct from updates underway |
Illustrative topic index; no private files have been scanned and complete update coverage is not promised. Record cutoffs and licences.
Analysis excerpt
| Check | Finding / sample content | Use |
|---|---|---|
| Original evidence locations | Locate trial and guidance separately | Check study populations against patient conditions; preserve original text |
| Version and entry checks | Separate 2024 guidance from an underway focused update | Distinguish recommendations, practice points and unpublished updates |
| Case-discussion handover | Conditions affecting applicability still need checks | Prepare open questions and agreed professional review records |
Delivery manifest
| File | Format | Contents |
|---|---|---|
| Case conditions and source applicability example | CSV / HTML | Questions, study populations, guidance entries, source locations and open conditions |
| Evidence checks and review record example | Source differences, applicability limits, unresolved items and review roles |
This is an illustrative formal delivery manifest. This pack supplies an HTML report, CSV tables and a source register. Agree formal formats, quantities and scope in the quote.
Acceptance criteria
- Each question has support or is explicitly unanswered. Facts, original locations, applicability and review status are checkable. Preserve supporting, contrary and uncertain evidence; a definite recommendation or better outcomes is not an acceptance condition.
Sources
- KDIGO official CKD guideline hub and focused-update notice
https://kdigo.org/guidelines/ckd-evaluation-and-management/ - DAPA-CKD randomized trial (NEJM, 2020; PMID 32970396)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32970396/ - KDIGO 2024 CKD Guideline, Practice Points 1.1.3.1–1.1.3.2
https://kdigo.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/KDIGO-2024-CKD-Guideline.pdf