4.1 Article

The Lund-Malmo creatinine-based glomerular filtration rate prediction equation for adults also performs well in children

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00365510801915163

关键词

Drug therapy; glomerular filtration rate; kidney disease; kidney function tests; renal insufficiency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective . To evaluate the clinical performance in a paediatric population of the Lund-Malmo creatinine-based glomerular filtration rate (GFR) prediction equations, primarily developed for adults. Material and methods . Iohexol clearance was used as the gold standard in 85 paediatric Caucasian patients (0.3-17 years; 37 F/48 M). One Lund-Malmo equation was based on age and gender (LM) and one included lean body mass (LM-LBM). Comparisons focused on correlation (adjusted R-2), bias (median percent error) and accuracy (proportions of predicted GFR differing <= 30 % from measured GFR) (mL/min/1.73 m(2)). The performances were compared with those of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study equation, a dedicated paediatric creatinine equation, Counahan-Barratt (CB) and a cystatin C-based equation. Results . The MDRD equation performed poorly with a median bias of 96 %. Of the remaining equations, only the LM-LBM produced significant bias (+10 % in median) according to line of identity regression analysis. The LM equation yielded marginally higher accuracy (76 %) than the LM-LBM equation (74 %) and the CB (73 %), but lower than the cystatin C-based equation (82 %). However, the estimated accuracy figures for these four equations were generally imprecise and none of the differences compared with the LM equation was statistically significant. Conclusion . In contrast to most creatinine-based GFR prediction equations, the LM equation performs adequately for both children and adults. This may be due to the unique model-building principles used when the LM equation was established. Further validation in a larger paediatric population is necessary.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据