Journal
CLINICAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEPHROLOGY
Volume 5, Issue 6, Pages 1003-1009Publisher
AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.06870909
Keywords
-
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Background and objectives: We compared the estimations of Cockcroft-Gault, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD), and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equations to a gold standard GFR measurement using I-125-iothalamate, within strata of GFR, gender, age, body weight, and body mass index (BMI). Design, setting, participants, & measurements: For people who previously underwent a GFR measurement, bias, precision, and accuracies between measured and estimated kidney functions were calculated within strata of the variables. The relation between the absolute bias and the variables was tested with linear regression analysis. Results: Overall (n = 271, 44% male, mean measured GFR 72.6 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) [SD 30.4 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)]), mean bias was smallest for MDRD (P < 0.01). CKD-EPI had highest accuracy (P < 0.01 compared with Cockcroft-Gault), which did not differ from MDRD (P = 0.14). The absolute bias of all formulas was related to age. For MDRD and CKD-EPI, absolute bias was also related to the GFR; for Cockcroft-Gault, it was related to body weight and BMI as well. In all extreme subgroups, MDRD and CKD-EPI provided highest accuracies. Conclusions: The absolute bias of all formulas is influenced by age; CKD-EPI and MDRD are also influenced by GFR. Cockcroft-Gault is additionally influenced by body weight and BMI. In general, CKD-EPI gives the best estimation of GFR, although its accuracy is close to that of the MDRD. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 5: 1003-1009, 2010. doi: 10.2215/CJN.06870909
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available