4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Current Status and Future Perspectives for CKD Testing

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF KIDNEY DISEASES
卷 53, 期 3, 页码 S17-S26

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2008.07.047

关键词

Glomerular filtration rate (GFR); chronic kidney disease; creatinine; detection

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [K23 DK081017] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is common in the United States. CKD usually is silent until its late stages; thus, many patients with CKD are not aware of their kidney disease. Often, they are found to have CKD only shortly before the onset of symptomatic kidney failure, when there are few opportunities to prevent adverse outcomes. Earlier detection allows more time for evaluation and treatment, but requires explicit testing strategies for asymptomatic individuals at increased risk. CKD is defined as kidney damage or glomerular filtration rate (GFR) less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) for 3 months or longer. In the majority of patients, CKD can be detected by using 2 simple tests: a urine test for the detection of proteinuria and a blood test to estimate GFR. Understanding the strengths and limitations of CKD testing is critical for appropriate interpretation of the results. The major strength of CKD testing is its feasibility of implementation in public health activities and clinical practice, enabling the detection of CKD by using objective measures without knowledge of the cause of the kidney disease. The major limitation of testing for urine protein is that both total protein and albumin excretion can be increased transiently for a number of factors. The major limitation of current GFR-estimating equations is the inaccuracy of estimates at 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and greater, which is the threshold for the definition of CKD. Repeated testing for urine protein and interpretation of GFR estimates in the context of kidney damage and the clinical context of patient presentation can help overcome these 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

4.6
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