BACKGROUND:Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimates facilitate detection of chronic kidney disease but require calibration of the serum creatinine assay to the laboratory that developed the equation. The 4-variable equation from the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study has been reexpressed for use with a standardized assay. OBJECTIVE: To describe the performance of the revised 4-variable MDRD Study equation and compare it with the performance of the 6-variable MDRD Study and Cockcroft-Gault equations. DESIGN: Comparison of estimated and measured GFR. SETTING: 15 clinical centers participating in a randomized, controlled trial. PATIENTS: 1628 patients with chronic kidney disease participating in the MDRD Study. MEASUREMENTS: Serum creatinine levels were calibrated to an assay traceable to isotope-dilution mass spectrometry. Glomerular filtration rate was measured as urinary clearance of 125I-iothalamate. RESULTS:Mean measured GFR was 39.8 mL/min per 1.73 m2 (SD, 21.2). Accuracy and precision of the revised 4-variable equation were similar to those of the original 6-variable equation and better than in the Cockcroft-Gault equation, even when the latter was corrected for bias, with 90%, 91%, 60%, and 83% of estimates within 30% of measured GFR, respectively. Differences between measured and estimated GFR were greater for all equations when the estimated GFR was 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or greater. LIMITATIONS: The MDRD Study included few patients with a GFR greater than 90 mL/min per 1.73 m2. Equations were not compared in a separate study sample. CONCLUSIONS: The 4-variable MDRD Study equation provides reasonably accurate GFR estimates in patients with chronic kidney disease and a measured GFR of less than 90 mL/min per 1.73 m2. By using the reexpressed MDRD Study equation with the standardized serum creatinine assay, clinical laboratories can report more accurate GFR estimates.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimates facilitate detection of chronic kidney disease but require calibration of the serum creatinine assay to the laboratory that developed the equation. The 4-variable equation from the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study has been reexpressed for use with a standardized assay. OBJECTIVE: To describe the performance of the revised 4-variable MDRD Study equation and compare it with the performance of the 6-variable MDRD Study and Cockcroft-Gault equations. DESIGN: Comparison of estimated and measured GFR. SETTING: 15 clinical centers participating in a randomized, controlled trial. PATIENTS: 1628 patients with chronic kidney disease participating in the MDRD Study. MEASUREMENTS: Serum creatinine levels were calibrated to an assay traceable to isotope-dilution mass spectrometry. Glomerular filtration rate was measured as urinary clearance of 125I-iothalamate. RESULTS: Mean measured GFR was 39.8 mL/min per 1.73 m2 (SD, 21.2). Accuracy and precision of the revised 4-variable equation were similar to those of the original 6-variable equation and better than in the Cockcroft-Gault equation, even when the latter was corrected for bias, with 90%, 91%, 60%, and 83% of estimates within 30% of measured GFR, respectively. Differences between measured and estimated GFR were greater for all equations when the estimated GFR was 60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or greater. LIMITATIONS: The MDRD Study included few patients with a GFR greater than 90 mL/min per 1.73 m2. Equations were not compared in a separate study sample. CONCLUSIONS: The 4-variable MDRD Study equation provides reasonably accurate GFR estimates in patients with chronic kidney disease and a measured GFR of less than 90 mL/min per 1.73 m2. By using the reexpressed MDRD Study equation with the standardized serum creatinine assay, clinical laboratories can report more accurate GFR estimates.
Authors: S L Zettervall; S E Deery; P A Soden; K Shean; J J Siracuse; M Alef; V I Patel; M L Schermerhorn Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 7.069
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: Xing Song; Lemuel R Waitman; Yong Hu; Alan S L Yu; David C Robbins; Mei Liu Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Andrew D Rule; Kent R Bailey; Gary L Schwartz; Sundeep Khosla; John C Lieske; L Joseph Melton Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2009-01-28 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Justyna Siwy; Joost P Schanstra; Angel Argiles; Stephan J L Bakker; Joachim Beige; Petr Boucek; Korbinian Brand; Christian Delles; Flore Duranton; Beatriz Fernandez-Fernandez; Marie-Luise Jankowski; Mohammad Al Khatib; Thomas Kunt; Maria Lajer; Ralf Lichtinghagen; Morten Lindhardt; David M Maahs; Harald Mischak; William Mullen; Gerjan Navis; Marina Noutsou; Alberto Ortiz; Frederik Persson; John R Petrie; Johannes M Roob; Peter Rossing; Piero Ruggenenti; Ivan Rychlik; Andreas L Serra; Janet Snell-Bergeon; Goce Spasovski; Olivera Stojceva-Taneva; Matias Trillini; Heiko von der Leyen; Brigitte M Winklhofer-Roob; Petra Zürbig; Joachim Jankowski Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2014-03-02 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Scott M Lilly; David R Jacobs; Richard Kronmal; David A Bluemke; Michael Criqui; Joao Lima; Matthew Allison; Daniel Duprez; Patrick Segers; Julio A Chirinos Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Sarah E Deery; Emel A Ergul; Marc L Schermerhorn; Jeffrey J Siracuse; Andres Schanzer; Philip P Goodney; Richard P Cambria; Virendra I Patel Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2017-08-31 Impact factor: 4.268