OBJECTIVE: To test the Mayo Clinic Quadratic (MCQ) equation against isotopic glomerular filtration rate, compared with the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and the Cockcroft-Gault formulas, in type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Based on values obtained with iothalamate, 118 type 2 diabetic patients were divided into three groups according to renal function: hyperfiltration (26), normal function (56), or chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 3-4 (36). ANOVA, the Bland-Altman procedure, and Lins coefficient (Rc) were performed to study accuracy. RESULTS: In the hyperfiltration and normal function groups, all prediction equations significantly underestimated the value obtained with isotopic glomerular filtration rate (P < 0.05). In the CKD group, all equations also presented significant differences with the isotopic method. However, MDRD had a bias of -5.3 (Rc 0.452), Cockcroft-Gault formula -0.2 (Rc 0.471), and the MCQ -4.5 (Rc 0.526). CONCLUSIONS: The MCQ and prediction equations proved inaccurate (excessive underestimation) in type 2 diabetic patients with hyperfiltration or normal renal function. With regard to CKD, the results obtained provided no evidence of superiority of the MCQ over the MDRD or the Cockcroft-Gault formula.
OBJECTIVE: To test the Mayo Clinic Quadratic (MCQ) equation against isotopic glomerular filtration rate, compared with the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and the Cockcroft-Gault formulas, in type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Based on values obtained with iothalamate, 118 type 2 diabetic patients were divided into three groups according to renal function: hyperfiltration (26), normal function (56), or chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 3-4 (36). ANOVA, the Bland-Altman procedure, and Lins coefficient (Rc) were performed to study accuracy. RESULTS: In the hyperfiltration and normal function groups, all prediction equations significantly underestimated the value obtained with isotopic glomerular filtration rate (P < 0.05). In the CKD group, all equations also presented significant differences with the isotopic method. However, MDRD had a bias of -5.3 (Rc 0.452), Cockcroft-Gault formula -0.2 (Rc 0.471), and the MCQ -4.5 (Rc 0.526). CONCLUSIONS: The MCQ and prediction equations proved inaccurate (excessive underestimation) in type 2 diabetic patients with hyperfiltration or normal renal function. With regard to CKD, the results obtained provided no evidence of superiority of the MCQ over the MDRD or the Cockcroft-Gault formula.
Authors: Andrew D Rule; Timothy S Larson; Erik J Bergstralh; Jeff M Slezak; Steven J Jacobsen; Fernando G Cosio Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-12-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Bruce A Perkins; Linda H Ficociello; Betsy E Ostrander; Kristen H Silva; Janice Weinberg; James H Warram; Andrzej S Krolewski Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2007-02-28 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: James B Wetmore; Robyn A Honea; Eric D Vidoni; Ammar Almehmi; Jeffrey M Burns Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2010-11-23 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Willemijn L Eppenga; Cornelis Kramers; Hieronymus J Derijks; Michel Wensing; Jack F M Wetzels; Peter A G M De Smet Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-05 Impact factor: 3.240