Vikas R Dharnidharka1, Charles Kwon, Gary Stevens. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610-0296, USA. vikasmd@peds.ufl.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Serum cystatin C (Cys C) has been proposed as a simple, accurate, and rapid endogenous marker of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in research and clinical practice. However, there are conflicting reports regarding the superiority of Cys C over serum creatinine (Cr), with a few studies suggesting no significant difference. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of available data from various studies to compare the accuracy of Cys C and Cr in relation to a reference standard of GFR. A bibliographic search showed 46 articles until December 31, 2001. We also retrieved data from eight other studies presented and published in abstract form. RESULTS: The overall correlation coefficient for the reciprocal of serum Cys C (r = 0.816; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.804 to 0.826) was superior to that of the reciprocal of serum Cr (r = 0.742; 95% CI, 0.726 to 0.758; P < 0.001). Similarly, receiver operating characteristic (ROC)-plot area under the curve (AUC) values for 1/Cys C had greater identity with the reference test for GFR (mean ROC-plot AUC for Cys C, 0.926; 95% CI, 0.892 to 0.960) than ROC-plot AUC values for 1/Cr (mean ROC-plot AUC for serum Cr, 0.837; 95% CI, 0.796 to 0.878; P < 0.001). Immunonephelometric methods of Cys C assay produced significantly greater correlations than other assay methods (r = 0.846 versus r = 0.784; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis using currently available data, serum Cys C is clearly superior to serum Cr as a marker of GFR measured by correlation or mean ROC-plot AUC. Copyright 2002 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc.
BACKGROUND: Serum cystatin C (Cys C) has been proposed as a simple, accurate, and rapid endogenous marker of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in research and clinical practice. However, there are conflicting reports regarding the superiority of Cys C over serum creatinine (Cr), with a few studies suggesting no significant difference. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of available data from various studies to compare the accuracy of Cys C and Cr in relation to a reference standard of GFR. A bibliographic search showed 46 articles until December 31, 2001. We also retrieved data from eight other studies presented and published in abstract form. RESULTS: The overall correlation coefficient for the reciprocal of serum Cys C (r = 0.816; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.804 to 0.826) was superior to that of the reciprocal of serum Cr (r = 0.742; 95% CI, 0.726 to 0.758; P < 0.001). Similarly, receiver operating characteristic (ROC)-plot area under the curve (AUC) values for 1/Cys C had greater identity with the reference test for GFR (mean ROC-plot AUC for Cys C, 0.926; 95% CI, 0.892 to 0.960) than ROC-plot AUC values for 1/Cr (mean ROC-plot AUC for serum Cr, 0.837; 95% CI, 0.796 to 0.878; P < 0.001). Immunonephelometric methods of Cys C assay produced significantly greater correlations than other assay methods (r = 0.846 versus r = 0.784; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis using currently available data, serum Cys C is clearly superior to serum Cr as a marker of GFR measured by correlation or mean ROC-plot AUC. Copyright 2002 by the National Kidney Foundation, Inc.
Authors: Frank Dieterle; Elias Perentes; André Cordier; Daniel R Roth; Pablo Verdes; Olivier Grenet; Serafino Pantano; Pierre Moulin; Daniel Wahl; Andreas Mahl; Peter End; Frank Staedtler; François Legay; Kevin Carl; David Laurie; Salah-Dine Chibout; Jacky Vonderscher; Gérard Maurer Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Josef S Ozer; Frank Dieterle; Sean Troth; Elias Perentes; André Cordier; Pablo Verdes; Frank Staedtler; Andreas Mahl; Olivier Grenet; Daniel R Roth; Daniel Wahl; François Legay; Daniel Holder; Zoltan Erdos; Katerina Vlasakova; Hong Jin; Yan Yu; Nagaraja Muniappa; Tom Forest; Holly K Clouse; Spencer Reynolds; Wendy J Bailey; Douglas T Thudium; Michael J Topper; Thomas R Skopek; Joseph F Sina; Warren E Glaab; Jacky Vonderscher; Gérard Maurer; Salah-Dine Chibout; Frank D Sistare; David L Gerhold Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 54.908
Authors: Kajs-Marie Schützer; Maria K Svensson; Sofia Zetterstrand; Ulf G Eriksson; Karin Wåhlander Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Catherine D Krawczeski; Rene G Vandevoorde; Thelma Kathman; Michael R Bennett; Jessica G Woo; Yu Wang; Rachel E Griffiths; Prasad Devarajan Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Meryl S Leboff; Rupali Narweker; Andrea LaCroix; Lieling Wu; Rebecca Jackson; Jennifer Lee; Douglas C Bauer; Jane Cauley; Charles Kooperberg; Cora Lewis; Asha M Thomas; Steven Cummings Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2009-01-27 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Michelle C Odden; Rebecca Scherzer; Peter Bacchetti; Lynda Anne Szczech; Stephen Sidney; Carl Grunfeld; Michael G Shlipak Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2007-11-12
Authors: Horng H Chen; Omar F AbouEzzeddine; Kevin J Anstrom; Michael M Givertz; Bradley A Bart; G Michael Felker; Adrian F Hernandez; Kerry L Lee; Eugene Braunwald; Margaret M Redfield Journal: Circ Heart Fail Date: 2013-09-01 Impact factor: 8.790