4.2 Article

Comparison of methods to estimate glomerular filtration rate in paediatric oncology patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF PAEDIATRICS AND CHILD HEALTH
卷 54, 期 2, 页码 141-147

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jpc.13752

关键词

glomerular filtration rate; paediatric oncology patients; renal function

资金

  1. BECAS-Chile CONICYT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimsGlomerular filtration rate (GFR) is estimated daily in paediatric oncology patients; however, few equations, particularly ones that do not include serum creatinine, have been evaluated in this population. We aimed to compare the predictive performance of different equations available to estimate GFR in paediatric oncology patients. MethodsGFR was measured (mGFR) in paediatric oncology patients based on a chromium 51-labeled ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid excretion test. GFR was estimated (eGFR) in these same patients using equations identified from the literature. mGFR and eGFR values were compared, and the predictive performance of various eGFR equations was assessed in terms of their bias, precision and accuracy. ResultsIn total, 124 mGFR values ranging from 7 to 146 mL/min were available for analysis from 73 children. Twenty-two equations were identified from the literature. The Flanders metadata equation displayed the lowest absolute bias (mean error of 0.9 mL/min) and the greatest precision (root mean square error of 13.1 mL/min). The univariate Schwartz equation predicted the highest percentage (81.5%) of eGFR values within 30% of mGFR values, and the Rhodin fat-free mass equation predicted the highest percentage (37.1%) of eGFR values within 10% of mGFR values. ConclusionsA number of equations were identified that could be used to estimate renal function in paediatric oncology patients; however, none was found to be highly accurate. The Flanders metadata equation and univariate Schwartz performed the best in this study, and we would suggest that these two equations may be used cautiously in paediatric oncology patients for clinical decision making, understanding their limitations.

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

4.2
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