Position Statement
Definition and Classification of CKD: The Debate Should Be About Patient Prognosis—A Position Statement From KDOQI and KDIGO

https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2009.04.001Get rights and content

Section snippets

Global Endorsement of a Common System for Definition and Staging of CKD

In 2004, KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes), an independent not-for-profit foundation governed by an international Board of Directors with the stated mission of improving the care and outcomes of kidney disease patients worldwide, hosted its first Controversies Conference devoted to the definition and classification of CKD.3 In preparation for this conference, a survey was sent to approximately 10,000 nephrologists worldwide via e-mail to assess their opinion of the KDOQI

Discussion About the Need for Revision

Recently, discussions on the limitations of the current system for the definition and classification of CKD, and the benefits and disadvantages of a possible modification to this system, have led to a passionate debate primarily in the editorial and correspondence pages of nephrology subspecialty journals and in public forums.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 The perceived limitations focus on several areas.

First, proponents of a change in the current system are

Position of KDOQI and KDIGO

Both KDOQI and KDIGO acknowledge that the ongoing debate is important and is a reflection of a self-critical appraisal of changing knowledge and practice within our discipline. The risk of overdiagnosis of CKD and inappropriate diagnosis of a kidney “disease” needs to be taken very seriously, since it may easily blunt preventive and therapeutic strategies and impair the credibility of a whole discipline. On the other hand, opportunities for improvement of patient care and appropriate

A KDIGO Controversies Conference on Definition, Classification, and Prognosis of CKD

The Executive Committee and Board of Directors of KDIGO believe that a comprehensive analysis of outcomes in patients with CKD is timely and represents the appropriate strategy to test the validity of the current system for definition and staging of CKD and to define the rationale for a possible modification. They have therefore decided that KDIGO will host a Controversies Conference to facilitate a review of the current system and a thorough analysis of the prognosis of patients fulfilling

Acknowledgements

This paper has been approved as official position of KDOQI and KDIGO by the executive committees of both organizations. Drs Eckardt and Kasiske are Co-Chairs of KDIGO, Dr Rocco is Chair of KDOQI, and Dr Berns is Vice-Chair of KDOQI responsible for clinical practice guidelines.

Financial Disclosure: None.

References (26)

  • National Kidney Foundation: K/DOQI Clinical Practice Guidelines for Chronic Kidney Disease: Evaluation, Classification and Stratification

    Am J Kidney Dis

    (2002)
  • W.G. Couser

    Chronic kidney disease–The promise and the perils

    J Am Soc Nephrol

    (2007)
  • R.J. Glassock et al.

    The global burden of chronic kidney disease: How valid are the estimates?

    Nephron Clin Pract

    (2008)
  • Cited by (193)

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Originally published online as doi:10.1053/j.ajkd.2009.04.001 on May 1, 2009.

    View full text