Glomerular filtration rate: Which method should we measure in daily clinical practice?
Özet
Aim. In this study, we compared estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) calculated with the formulas of Cockcroft-Gault (C&G), Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD), Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) and Mayo Clinic Quadratic (Mayo Q) and, GFR (mGFR) that was scintigraphically measured with creatinine clearance (CrC1) and technetium-99m di-ethylene triamine penta-acetic acid (99mTc-DTPA). Objective of this study was to define the correlations between the formulas, provide a reliable method for measurement and estimation of GFR in daily clinical practice and demonstrate the potential errors. Methods. C&G, CKD-EPI, Mayo Q and MDRD eGFR of 84(37 males, 47 females) patients diagnosed with chronic kidney disease were calculated. Values of 99mTc-DTPA based on mGFR were compared with eGFR values of the formulas. Results. Significant correlations were found with the values of 99mTc-DTPA mGFR, CrCl, MDRD, CKD-EPI, Mayo Q and C&G eGFR. The highest correlation was found between LBM (lean body mass) corrected C&G, MDRD-6, Mayo Q and CKD-EPI eGFR. The best estimate was made with MDRD-6 in the cases with 99mTc-DTPA mGFR<30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and with MDRD-4 in the cases with 99mTc-DTPA mGFR≥30 mL/min/1.73 m2, while the worst estimate was made with uncorrected C&G formula in both groups. Conclusion. All eGFR formulas can be used in daily clinical practice. However, using MDRD-6 in the cases with GFR<30 mL/min/1.73 nil and MDRD-4 in the cases with GFR≥30 mL/min/1.73m2 as well as using LBM for C&G eGFR or correction according to LBM when AW (actual weight) is used, might provide a more accurate estimation.
Anahtar Kelimeler
Tam Kayıt
| Alan | Değer | Dil |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Yildiz, G. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Maǧden, K. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Abdulkerim, Y. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Ozcicek, F. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Hür, E. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Candan, F. | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2026-10-18T20:30:42.671662527Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2026-10-18T20:30:42.671662527Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
| dc.description.abstract | Aim. In this study, we compared estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) calculated with the formulas of Cockcroft-Gault (C&G), Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD), Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) and Mayo Clinic Quadratic (Mayo Q) and, GFR (mGFR) that was scintigraphically measured with creatinine clearance (CrC1) and technetium-99m di-ethylene triamine penta-acetic acid (99mTc-DTPA). Objective of this study was to define the correlations between the formulas, provide a reliable method for measurement and estimation of GFR in daily clinical practice and demonstrate the potential errors. Methods. C&G, CKD-EPI, Mayo Q and MDRD eGFR of 84(37 males, 47 females) patients diagnosed with chronic kidney disease were calculated. Values of 99mTc-DTPA based on mGFR were compared with eGFR values of the formulas. Results. Significant correlations were found with the values of 99mTc-DTPA mGFR, CrCl, MDRD, CKD-EPI, Mayo Q and C&G eGFR. The highest correlation was found between LBM (lean body mass) corrected C&G, MDRD-6, Mayo Q and CKD-EPI eGFR. The best estimate was made with MDRD-6 in the cases with 99mTc-DTPA mGFR<30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and with MDRD-4 in the cases with 99mTc-DTPA mGFR≥30 mL/min/1.73 m2, while the worst estimate was made with uncorrected C&G formula in both groups. Conclusion. All eGFR formulas can be used in daily clinical practice. However, using MDRD-6 in the cases with GFR<30 mL/min/1.73 nil and MDRD-4 in the cases with GFR≥30 mL/min/1.73m2 as well as using LBM for C&G eGFR or correction according to LBM when AW (actual weight) is used, might provide a more accurate estimation. | |
| dc.identifier.eissn | 1827-1669 | |
| dc.identifier.endpage | 623 | |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0026-4806 | |
| dc.identifier.issue | 6 | |
| dc.identifier.pmid | 24316914 | |
| dc.identifier.scopus | 2-s2.0-84894116361 | |
| dc.identifier.startpage | 613 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://rdlopen.rawdatalibrary.net/r/ebyu/15863 | |
| dc.identifier.volume | 104 | |
| dc.identifier.wos | WOS:000331341600004 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | |
| dc.publisher | EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA | |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Minerva Medica | |
| dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | |
| dc.subject | Chronic | |
| dc.subject | Diagnosis | |
| dc.subject | Glomerular filtration rate | |
| dc.subject | Renal insufficiency | |
| dc.subject | Algorithms | |
| dc.subject | Creatinine | |
| dc.subject | Female | |
| dc.subject | Humans | |
| dc.subject | Male | |
| dc.subject | Middle Aged | |
| dc.subject | Radiopharmaceuticals | |
| dc.subject | Renal Insufficiency, Chronic | |
| dc.subject | ROC Curve | |
| dc.subject | Technetium Tc 99m Pentetate | |
| dc.title | Glomerular filtration rate: Which method should we measure in daily clinical practice? | |
| dc.type | Article | |
| dspace.entity.type | Publication | |
| rdl.citation.scopus | 11 | |
| rdl.citation.wos | 12 | |
| rdl.source.index | SCOPUS | |
| rdl.source.index | WOS | |
| rdl.wos.index | Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) |
