BACKGROUND: Reliable serum creatinine measurements in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation are critical to ongoing global public health efforts to increase the diagnosis and treatment of chronic kidney disease (CKD). We present an overview of the commonly used methods for the determination of serum creatinine, method limitations, and method performance in conjunction with the development of analytical performance criteria. Available resources for standardization of serum creatinine measurement are discussed, and recommendations for measurement improvement are given. METHODS: The National Kidney Disease Education Program (NKDEP) Laboratory Working Group reviewed problems related to serum creatinine measurement for estimating GFR and prepared recommendations to standardize and improve creatinine measurement. RESULTS: The NKDEP Laboratory Working Group, in collaboration with international professional organizations, has developed a plan that enables standardization and improved accuracy (trueness) of serum creatinine measurements in clinical laboratories worldwide that includes the use of the estimating equation for GFR based on serum creatinine concentration that was developed from the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study. CONCLUSIONS: The current variability in serum creatinine measurements renders all estimating equations for GFR, including the MDRD Study equation, less accurate in the normal and slightly increased range of serum creatinine concentrations [<133 micromol/L (1.5 mg/dL)], which is the relevant range for detecting CKD [<60 mL.min(-1).(1.73 m2)(-1)]. Many automated routine methods for serum creatinine measurement meet or exceed the required precision; therefore, reduction of analytical bias in creatinine assays is needed. Standardization of calibration does not correct for analytical interferences (nonspecificity bias). The bias and nonspecificity problems associated with some of the routine methods must be addressed.
BACKGROUND: Reliable serum creatinine measurements in glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation are critical to ongoing global public health efforts to increase the diagnosis and treatment of chronic kidney disease (CKD). We present an overview of the commonly used methods for the determination of serum creatinine, method limitations, and method performance in conjunction with the development of analytical performance criteria. Available resources for standardization of serum creatinine measurement are discussed, and recommendations for measurement improvement are given. METHODS: The National Kidney Disease Education Program (NKDEP) Laboratory Working Group reviewed problems related to serum creatinine measurement for estimating GFR and prepared recommendations to standardize and improve creatinine measurement. RESULTS: The NKDEP Laboratory Working Group, in collaboration with international professional organizations, has developed a plan that enables standardization and improved accuracy (trueness) of serum creatinine measurements in clinical laboratories worldwide that includes the use of the estimating equation for GFR based on serum creatinine concentration that was developed from the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) study. CONCLUSIONS: The current variability in serum creatinine measurements renders all estimating equations for GFR, including the MDRD Study equation, less accurate in the normal and slightly increased range of serum creatinine concentrations [<133 micromol/L (1.5 mg/dL)], which is the relevant range for detecting CKD [<60 mL.min(-1).(1.73 m2)(-1)]. Many automated routine methods for serum creatinine measurement meet or exceed the required precision; therefore, reduction of analytical bias in creatinine assays is needed. Standardization of calibration does not correct for analytical interferences (nonspecificity bias). The bias and nonspecificity problems associated with some of the routine methods must be addressed.
Authors: Paul Muntner; Britt Newsome; Holly Kramer; Carmen A Peralta; Yongin Kim; David R Jacobs; Catarina I Kiefe; Cora E Lewis Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2011-11-10 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Morgan E Grams; Laura C Plantinga; Elizabeth Hedgeman; Rajiv Saran; Gary L Myers; Desmond E Williams; Neil R Powe Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2010-08-06 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Elizabeth A Yetley; Christine M Pfeiffer; Rosemary L Schleicher; Karen W Phinney; David A Lacher; Sylvia Christakos; John H Eckfeldt; James C Fleet; George Howard; Andrew N Hoofnagle; Siu L Hui; Gary L Lensmeyer; Joseph Massaro; Munro Peacock; Bernard Rosner; Donald Wiebe; Regan L Bailey; Paul M Coates; Anne C Looker; Christopher Sempos; Clifford L Johnson; Mary Frances Picciano Journal: J Nutr Date: 2010-09-29 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Rebecca S B Fischer; Sreedhar Mandayam; Denis Chavarria; Chandan Vangala; Melissa S Nolan; Linda L Garcia; Lesbia Palma; Felix Garcia; Ramón García-Trabanino; Kristy O Murray Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Ayse L Mindikoglu; Antone R Opekun; William E Mitch; Laurence S Magder; Robert H Christenson; Thomas C Dowling; Matthew R Weir; Stephen L Seliger; Charles D Howell; Jean-Pierre Raufman; Abbas Rana; John A Goss; Saira A Khaderi; John M Vierling Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Marcella D Walker; Thomas Nickolas; Anna Kepley; James A Lee; Chiyuan Zhang; Donald J McMahon; Shonni J Silverberg Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2014-02-14 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Sang Soo Kim; Sang Heon Song; Jong Ho Kim; Yun Kyung Jeon; Bo Hyun Kim; Min-Cheol Kang; Sung Wan Chun; Soo Hyun Hong; Michelle Chung; Yong Ki Kim; In Joo Kim; Young-Bum Kim Journal: Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 3.478