Cargando…
MDRD or CKD-EPI study equations for estimating prevalence of stage 3 CKD in epidemiological studies: which difference? Is this difference relevant?
BACKGROUND: Prevalence of stage 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD) is increasing according to the NHANES study. Prevalence has been calculated using the MDRD study equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Recently, a new estimator based on creatinine, the CKD-EPI equation, has been prop...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2010
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2891733/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20515483 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2369-11-8 |
_version_ | 1782182893958725632 |
---|---|
author | Delanaye, Pierre Cavalier, Etienne Mariat, Christophe Maillard, Nicolas Krzesinski, Jean-Marie |
author_facet | Delanaye, Pierre Cavalier, Etienne Mariat, Christophe Maillard, Nicolas Krzesinski, Jean-Marie |
author_sort | Delanaye, Pierre |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Prevalence of stage 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD) is increasing according to the NHANES study. Prevalence has been calculated using the MDRD study equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Recently, a new estimator based on creatinine, the CKD-EPI equation, has been proposed which is presumed to better perform in normal GFR ranges. The aim of the study was to measure the difference in prevalence of stage 3 CKD in a population using either the MDRD or the CKD-EPI study equations. METHODS: CKD screening is organized in the Province of Liège, Belgium. On a voluntary basis, people aged between 45 and 75 years are invited to be screened. GFR is estimated by the MDRD study equation and by the "new" CKD-EPI equations. RESULTS: The population screened consisted in 1992 people (47% of men). Mean serum creatinine was 0.86 ± 0.20 mg/dL. The prevalence of stage 3 CKD in this population using the MDRD or the CKD-EPI equations was 11.04 and 7.98%, respectively. The prevalence of stage 3 CKD is significantly higher with the MDRD study equation (p < 0,0012). CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of stage 3 CKD varies strongly following the method used for estimating GFR, MDRD or CKD-EPI study equations. Such discrepancies are of importance and must be confirmed and explained by additional studies using GFR measured with a reference method. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2891733 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2010 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-28917332010-06-25 MDRD or CKD-EPI study equations for estimating prevalence of stage 3 CKD in epidemiological studies: which difference? Is this difference relevant? Delanaye, Pierre Cavalier, Etienne Mariat, Christophe Maillard, Nicolas Krzesinski, Jean-Marie BMC Nephrol Research article BACKGROUND: Prevalence of stage 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD) is increasing according to the NHANES study. Prevalence has been calculated using the MDRD study equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Recently, a new estimator based on creatinine, the CKD-EPI equation, has been proposed which is presumed to better perform in normal GFR ranges. The aim of the study was to measure the difference in prevalence of stage 3 CKD in a population using either the MDRD or the CKD-EPI study equations. METHODS: CKD screening is organized in the Province of Liège, Belgium. On a voluntary basis, people aged between 45 and 75 years are invited to be screened. GFR is estimated by the MDRD study equation and by the "new" CKD-EPI equations. RESULTS: The population screened consisted in 1992 people (47% of men). Mean serum creatinine was 0.86 ± 0.20 mg/dL. The prevalence of stage 3 CKD in this population using the MDRD or the CKD-EPI equations was 11.04 and 7.98%, respectively. The prevalence of stage 3 CKD is significantly higher with the MDRD study equation (p < 0,0012). CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence of stage 3 CKD varies strongly following the method used for estimating GFR, MDRD or CKD-EPI study equations. Such discrepancies are of importance and must be confirmed and explained by additional studies using GFR measured with a reference method. BioMed Central 2010-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC2891733/ /pubmed/20515483 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2369-11-8 Text en Copyright ©2010 Delanaye et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research article Delanaye, Pierre Cavalier, Etienne Mariat, Christophe Maillard, Nicolas Krzesinski, Jean-Marie MDRD or CKD-EPI study equations for estimating prevalence of stage 3 CKD in epidemiological studies: which difference? Is this difference relevant? |
title | MDRD or CKD-EPI study equations for estimating prevalence of stage 3 CKD in epidemiological studies: which difference? Is this difference relevant? |
title_full | MDRD or CKD-EPI study equations for estimating prevalence of stage 3 CKD in epidemiological studies: which difference? Is this difference relevant? |
title_fullStr | MDRD or CKD-EPI study equations for estimating prevalence of stage 3 CKD in epidemiological studies: which difference? Is this difference relevant? |
title_full_unstemmed | MDRD or CKD-EPI study equations for estimating prevalence of stage 3 CKD in epidemiological studies: which difference? Is this difference relevant? |
title_short | MDRD or CKD-EPI study equations for estimating prevalence of stage 3 CKD in epidemiological studies: which difference? Is this difference relevant? |
title_sort | mdrd or ckd-epi study equations for estimating prevalence of stage 3 ckd in epidemiological studies: which difference? is this difference relevant? |
topic | Research article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2891733/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20515483 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2369-11-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT delanayepierre mdrdorckdepistudyequationsforestimatingprevalenceofstage3ckdinepidemiologicalstudieswhichdifferenceisthisdifferencerelevant AT cavalieretienne mdrdorckdepistudyequationsforestimatingprevalenceofstage3ckdinepidemiologicalstudieswhichdifferenceisthisdifferencerelevant AT mariatchristophe mdrdorckdepistudyequationsforestimatingprevalenceofstage3ckdinepidemiologicalstudieswhichdifferenceisthisdifferencerelevant AT maillardnicolas mdrdorckdepistudyequationsforestimatingprevalenceofstage3ckdinepidemiologicalstudieswhichdifferenceisthisdifferencerelevant AT krzesinskijeanmarie mdrdorckdepistudyequationsforestimatingprevalenceofstage3ckdinepidemiologicalstudieswhichdifferenceisthisdifferencerelevant |