4.7 Article

Generation of a New Cystatin C-Based Estimating Equation for Glomerular Filtration Rate by Use of 7 Assays Standardized to the International Calibrator

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 60, 期 7, 页码 974-986

出版社

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2013.220707

关键词

-

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25305029] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Many different cystatin C-based equations exist for estimating glomerular filtration rate. Major reasons for this are the previous lack of an international cystatin C calibrator and the nonequivalence of results from different cystatin C assays. METHODS: Use of the recently introduced certified reference material, ERM-DA471/IFCC, and further work to achieve high agreement and equivalence of 7 commercially available cystatin C assays allowed a substantial decrease of the CV of the assays, as defined by their performance in an external quality assessment for clinical laboratory investigations. By use of 2 of these assays and a population of 4690 subjects, with large subpopulations of children and Asian and Caucasian adults, with their GFR determined by either renal or plasma inulin clearance or plasma iohexol clearance, we attempted to produce a virtually assay-independent simple cystatin C-based equation for estimation of GFR. RESULTS: We developed a simple cystatin C-based equation for estimation of GFR comprising only 2 variables, cystatin C concentration and age. No terms for race and sex are required for optimal diagnostic performance. The equation, eGFR = 130 x cystatin C-1.069 x age(-0.117) - 7 is also biologically oriented, with 1 term for the theoretical renal clearance of small molecules and 1 constant for extrarenal clearance of cystatin C. CONCLUSIONS: A virtually assay-independent simple cystatin C-based and biologically oriented equation for estimation of GFR, without terms for sex and race, was produced. (C) 2014 American Association for Clinical Chemistry

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

4.7
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