All documents used as evidence are listed with a

level of evidence, and a table of abstracts was prepared (not included in the digest version). The level of evidence and the grade of recommendation were assigned to the answers to CQs. The levels of evidence and grades of recommendation are as follows: Level of evidence Level I: Data obtained from a ��-Nicotinamide cell line systematic review or a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials Level II: Data obtained from at least one randomized comparative clinical trial Level III: Data obtained from non-randomized comparative clinical trials Level IVa: Cohort studies Level IVb: Case–Cediranib control studies, or cross-sectional studies Level V: Case reports, or case series Level VI: Opinions of special committees or specialists with no basis of patient data Grade of recommendation Grade A: A given treatment or procedure is recommended based on robust scientific evidence Grade B: A given treatment or procedure is suggested based on scientific evidence Grade C1: A given treatment or procedure may (/might) be considered although scientific evidence is not available Grade C2: A given treatment or procedure may (/might) be not considered because scientific evidence is not available Grade D: A given treatment or procedure is not recommended because scientific evidence indicating

the inefficacy or harm of the treatment/procedure is available The Delphi learn more method was used to finalize the answer to each CQ and determine its grade of recommendation. The reader should give a higher priority to the grade of recommendation of the answer than to the level of evidence. The grade of recommendation has been decided not only based on the level of evidence, but also on the quality and clinical significance

Carbohydrate of the evidence, extent and conclusions of data on harmful effects and cost effectiveness, depth of coverage by the NHI system, and availability in Japan. Independent assessment The present guidelines were reviewed by the independent assessment committee consisting of 3 representatives each from the JSN, JRS, and JCS. The final draft of the guidelines was published on Web pages of the 3 societies along with a request for public comments. The guideline writing committee discussed the comments, used them to revise the guidelines when appropriate, and finalized the guidelines. Future plans After the publication as a printed book from Tokyo Igakusha, the Japanese version of the guidelines will be published in the Japanese Journal of Nephrology, and as a JCS guideline document, and then will be published on-line on the Web sites of the member societies. An English version will be prepared and published on the English journals of member societies. The guidelines will also be published on the Minds of the Japan Council for Quality Health Care. The full and digest versions of the guidelines are planned to be revised every 5 years.