BACKGROUND: Routine laboratory reporting of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) may help clinicians detect kidney disease. The current national prevalence of eGFR reporting in clinical laboratories is unknown; thus, the extent of the situation of laboratories not routinely reporting eGFR with serum creatinine results is not quantified. DESIGN: Observational analysis. SETTING: National Kidney Disease Education Program survey of clinical laboratories conducted in 2006 to 2007 by mail, web, and telephone follow-up. PARTICIPANTS: A national random sample, 6,350 clinical laboratories, drawn from the Federal Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments database and stratified by 6 major laboratory types/groupings. PREDICTORS: Laboratory reports serum creatinine results. OUTCOMES: Reporting eGFR values with serum creatinine results. MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of laboratories reporting eGFR along with reporting serum creatinine values, reporting protocol, eGFR formula used, and style of reporting cutoff values. RESULTS: Of laboratories reporting serum creatinine values, 38.4% report eGFR (physician offices, 25.8%; hospitals, 43.6%; independents, 38.9%; community clinics, 47.2%; health fair/insurance/public health, 45.5%; and others, 43.2%). Physician office laboratories have a reporting prevalence lower than other laboratory types (P < 0.001). Of laboratories reporting eGFR, 66.7% do so routinely with all adult serum creatinine determinations; 71.6% use the 4-variable Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation; and 45.3% use the ">60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)" reporting convention. Independent laboratories are least likely to routinely report eGFR (50.6%; P < 0.05) and most likely to report only when specifically requested (45.4%; P < 0.05). High-volume laboratories across all strata are more likely to report eGFR (P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: Self-reporting by laboratories, federal database did not have names of laboratory directors/managers (intended respondents), assumed accuracy of federal database for sample purposes. CONCLUSIONS: Routine eGFR reporting with serum creatinine values is not yet universal, and laboratories vary in their reporting practices.
BACKGROUND: Routine laboratory reporting of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) may help clinicians detect kidney disease. The current national prevalence of eGFR reporting in clinical laboratories is unknown; thus, the extent of the situation of laboratories not routinely reporting eGFR with serum creatinine results is not quantified. DESIGN: Observational analysis. SETTING: National Kidney Disease Education Program survey of clinical laboratories conducted in 2006 to 2007 by mail, web, and telephone follow-up. PARTICIPANTS: A national random sample, 6,350 clinical laboratories, drawn from the Federal Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments database and stratified by 6 major laboratory types/groupings. PREDICTORS: Laboratory reports serum creatinine results. OUTCOMES: Reporting eGFR values with serum creatinine results. MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of laboratories reporting eGFR along with reporting serum creatinine values, reporting protocol, eGFR formula used, and style of reporting cutoff values. RESULTS: Of laboratories reporting serum creatinine values, 38.4% report eGFR (physician offices, 25.8%; hospitals, 43.6%; independents, 38.9%; community clinics, 47.2%; health fair/insurance/public health, 45.5%; and others, 43.2%). Physician office laboratories have a reporting prevalence lower than other laboratory types (P < 0.001). Of laboratories reporting eGFR, 66.7% do so routinely with all adult serum creatinine determinations; 71.6% use the 4-variable Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation; and 45.3% use the ">60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)" reporting convention. Independent laboratories are least likely to routinely report eGFR (50.6%; P < 0.05) and most likely to report only when specifically requested (45.4%; P < 0.05). High-volume laboratories across all strata are more likely to report eGFR (P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: Self-reporting by laboratories, federal database did not have names of laboratory directors/managers (intended respondents), assumed accuracy of federal database for sample purposes. CONCLUSIONS: Routine eGFR reporting with serum creatinine values is not yet universal, and laboratories vary in their reporting practices.
Authors: Gary L Myers; W Greg Miller; Josef Coresh; James Fleming; Neil Greenberg; Tom Greene; Thomas Hostetter; Andrew S Levey; Mauro Panteghini; Michael Welch; John H Eckfeldt Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2005-12-06 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Andrew S Levey; Josef Coresh; Ethan Balk; Annamaria T Kausz; Adeera Levin; Michael W Steffes; Ronald J Hogg; Ronald D Perrone; Joseph Lau; Garabed Eknoyan Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-07-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Ayub Akbari; Peter J Swedko; Heather D Clark; William Hogg; Jacques Lemelin; Peter Magner; Lisa Moore; Daylily Ooi Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2004-09-13
Authors: Erik M van Maarseveen; Annemien Bouma; Daniel J Touw; Cees Neef; Arthur R H van Zanten Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2014-08-30 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Saleem Jessani; Andrew S Levey; Rasool Bux; Lesley A Inker; Muhammad Islam; Nish Chaturvedi; Christophe Mariat; Christopher H Schmid; Tazeen H Jafar Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2013-09-26 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Julie A Wright; Kenneth A Wallston; Tom A Elasy; T Alp Ikizler; Kerri L Cavanaugh Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2010-12-18 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Krupa Patel; Clarissa Diamantidis; Min Zhan; Van Doren Hsu; Loreen D Walker; James Gardner; Matthew R Weir; Jeffrey C Fink Journal: Am J Nephrol Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 3.754
Authors: Rasheeda K Hall; Virginia Wang; George L Jackson; Bradley G Hammill; Matthew L Maciejewski; Elizabeth M Yano; Laura P Svetkey; Uptal D Patel Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2012-07-12 Impact factor: 2.796