How to calculate gfr

how to calculate gfr (1)

The Way to Figure your GFR

Estimating GFR starts with a very simple serum creatinine blood test. If you are utilizing our GFR calculator, then your eGFR is calculated with the results of your blood test, together with your age, ethnicity, and sex. Whenever your eGFR is figured by your physician, weight and body size might also be factored into your eGFR.

What exactly does your own GFR mean to you?
Your eGFR helps identify your own level of kidney function. Every stage of kidney disorder suits up into an eGFR selection, and understanding which point you are in will help you determine the actions that you want to take to remain your most healthy. People in early stages 1-3 of CKD, as an instance, might want to focus on lifestyle modifications and ingesting a kidney-friendly dietplan. Individuals in later phases CKD 5 and 4 might want to discover a nephrologist and research treatment alternatives, such as dialysis or a kidney transplant.

Use the graph below to ascertain that CKD stage best fits your GFR calculator results and click the point to find out about healthful following actions.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a significant outbreak and public health problem that’s associated with a substantial risk for cardiovascular disease and premature cardiovascular mortality in addition to progression of kidney disorder. Presently it’s categorized into five phases depending on the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) as advocated by several professional guidelines. Radiolabelled procedures for measuring GFR are precise although not functional and may be used exclusively on a really limited scale while the standard approaches demand timed urine collection using its disadvantage of inaccuracy, cumbersomeness and annoyance for those patients. On the other hand, the maturation of formulation – based calculation of estimated GFR (eGFR) has provided an extremely practical and effortless approach for converting serum creatinine value into GFR outcome taking into consideration individual’s age, gender, ethnicity and weight (based on equation kind ). The widely used equations comprise Cockraft and Gault (1976), Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) (1999) and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) (2009). It’s the execution of those specimens particularly the MDRD which has increased the medical consciousness in the analysis and management of CKD and its adoption by several principles in North America and Europe. The effect and disadvantages of all these specimens from the screening, identification and management of individuals with CKD are discussed and presented in this review.

Details: eGFR, Chronic kidney disease, Cockraft and Gault, MDRD, CKD-EPI
Visit:
Introduction
Assessment of renal function represents the most moderate core lab testing that’s performed globally. The rising incidence of many chronic ailments particularly diabetes mellitus, hypertension, cardiovascular disease and renal diseases with the rising medical care and its effect on improving life expectancy have centered on the significance of organs functions evaluation including most significantly renal function. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is also a substantial risk factor for cardiovascular disease and premature cardiovascular mortality in addition to progression of kidney disorder. 1

Classification and Analysis of Chronic Kidney Disease
CKD is categorized according to glomerular filtration rate (GFR), as advocated by the US- based National Kidney Foundation Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (NKF-K/DOQI), also embraced by the Cardiovascular Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) and the National Service Framework (NSF) for Renal Services and Kidney Disease and National Institute of Public Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Two This classification provides the foundation for the management of CKD. Therefore, CKD is categorized into five stages: stage 1 (kidney damage with normal or increased GFR ³90), phase 2 (kidney impairment with marginally decreased GFR 60-89), phase 3 (moderately decreased GFR 30-59), phase 4 (severely diminished GFR 15-29), and phase 5 (kidney failure, GFR <15) [all GFR in mL/min/1.73 m2]. For the diagnosis of stage 1 and stage 2 CKD, an evidence of kidney damage for ³3 months is required as manifested by pathological kidney abnormalities or abnormal urine composition (such as haematuria or proteinuria), or abnormalities in imaging tests. Recent guidance from NICE has recommended sub-classifying CKD stage 3 into 3A (GFR 45-59 mL/min/1.73 m2) and stage 3B (GFR 30-44 mL/min/1.73 m2), each with different level of risk. NICE guidance also recommended the use of suffix (p) to denote the presence of proteinuria when staging CKD, using random urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio in preference to protein-to-creatinine ratio.3 At the NSF for Renal Services, the expression’kidney failure’ from the NKF classification is substituted by’recognized renal failure’ (ERF) defined as CKD that has progressed to ensure renal replacement therapy (RRT) is required to preserve life. Two

The incidence of CKD is so large that’s simulates a global epidemic and public health problem all around the world. In UK, the incidence of CKD phase 3-5 (GFR <60 mL/min/1.73m2) is estimated to be 8.5%,4 and according to a review of 26 research an incidence of CKD of 7.2percent in patients aged 30 decades and an incidence of 23.4-35.8percent in patients aged 64 years have been reported. 5 In US, the incidence of CKD according to information from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) was 11 percent (3.3% with phase 1; 3.0percent with phase 2; 4.3% with phase 3; 0.2% with phase 4; and 0.2% with phase 5). 6 Additionally, the United States Renal Data System (USRDS), a nationwide database for CKD patients receiving RRT, reported that an estimate incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in US inhabitants of 344,000, with just modest proportion of CKD patients are on RRT which signifies the hint of a massive iceberg. 7 there’s been an increasing consciousness about CKD for the previous ten years in parallel with book of their CKD stages classification by NKF-K/DOQI in 2002 that was embraced by another guidelines. Two Early detection and therapy for kidney disease/damage ought to be aimed to impede or stop any progression in kidney malfunction, and thus to stop or postpone the need for RRT and decrease the associated risk of cardiovascular death. Screening populations at risk of developing CKD is considered today to be a significant challenge in the management of individuals with underlying chronic ailments and is of interest especially to Clinicians such as Nephrologists, Diabetologists, and General Practitioners.

The approach of screening for almost any underling kidney impairment was eased and eventually become routinely accessible with the arrival of calculating the estimated GFR (eGFR) from serum creatinine based on formulae which take under consideration numerous individual’s attributes. With this approach, the consequence of serum creatinine is transformed to physiological components of GFR. The creatinine- established calculated eGFR has improved the validity of serum creatinine that’s considered alone an insensitive indicator of glomerular function whereby at approximately 50 percent of glomerular function needs to be dropped before creatinine is increased in blood. 8 it’s also affected by muscular mass, age, race and gender. Regardless of the continuing analytical improvement in the methods of creatinine dimension, nevertheless still it’s experiencing limited sensitivity and specificity, analytical interferences and standardization problems. 9 Serum creatinine is a poor screening test for CKD in older individuals especially girls and might fail to identify 50 percent of individuals with CKD stage 3. 10 On the other hand, measurement of GFR using exogenous (radiolabeled or non-radiolabeled) for example 51Cr labeled Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), 99mTc labeled Diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA), 125I-Iothalamate, Iohexol, inulin, or endogenous approaches like creatinine clearance seem to be accurate but cumbersome, labor intensive, expensive and impractical for broad use. 8 the most frequently utilized 24 hr creatinine clearance suffers from the drawback of this demand for 24 hr urine collection together with its famous drawbacks of broad intra-individual version, inaccuracy and annoyance when amassing timed urine specimens. 8

Development of formulation – based calculation of eGFR has provided approaches for converting serum creatinine value (using its own limitations when reported independently ) to GFR result (using its benefit in symbolizing glomerular function status). Until 1999, there have been over 25 of these formulae using Cockraft and Gault formula11 Seems to be the most appealing and supported one in adults in which by:

EGFR (mL/min)= [(140 – age) × Wt / (0.814 × S.Cr at µmol/L)] × (0.85 if female)
[eGFR Needs to be adjusted for surface region ]
This equation gained program because of its greater correlation (r=0.83) when assessed against 125Iothalamate GFR compared with 24 hr creatinine clearance (r= 0.69). 12 But, the demand for body weight in the equation has significantly restricted its practicability for broad use in renal medicine. Back in 1999, a wonderful shift in using creatinine- based calculation of GFR premiered in clinic by Levey et al13 who confirmed a new formula for calculating eGFR according to serum creatinine, age, sex and ethnicity in addition to urea and albumin utilizing 6- factors Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (6-v MDRD) equation. The addition of urea and albumin has been a limit for the additional price and analytic variation. Recognizing that, in 2000 Levey et al14 then published a 4-variables (4-v MDRD) equation That Doesn’t require albumin and urea with no Effect on precision, whereby:

EGFR (mL/min/1.73m2) = 186 (S.Cr at µmol/l × 0.011312) -1.154 × (era )-0.203 × (0.742 if female) × (1.212 if African/American Black)
The constant variable of 186 mentioned in the initial equation was subsequently suggested by the very same writers to be re-expressed utilizing a constant of 175, in case creatinine dimension is standardized from Isotope Dilution-Mass Spectrometry (ID-MS) benchmark technique. 15

It’s the ease and practicability of the MDRD equation that does not want body fat, report GFR from mL/min/1.73 m2 without demand for correction of surface area, and which has been affirmed against 125Iothalamate GFR in big population across a vast selection of GFR, which facilitate its broad application in lab practice. Since that time, eGFR derived from serum creatinine established MDRD equation gained global distribute in reporting renal function evaluation. This approach began to put on a core function as a suitable measure of kidney function which has been quickly understood by virtually all doctors. It’s this advancement in eGFR reporting against serum creatinine that induce the global professional societies like NKF-K/DOQI, KDIGO, NICE and NSF for Renal Services and Kidney Disease, towards executing eGFR from the management and classification of CKD. Subsequently, in UK in April 2006 it had been determined from the Department of Health (DH) based on recommendation in the NSF for Renal Services and Kidney Disease to report MDRD formula-based eGFR for kidney function testing when serum creatinine is quantified in most National Health Service (NHS) Laboratories. This was advocated as a way to avoid people developing kidney disease at the first case or to slow the progression of kidney damage and decrease cardiovascular risk when a diagnosis was made. 16 Consequently, the DH advocated that the regional Health Organisations must operate with Pathology Services and Networks to produce protocols for measuring kidney function by serum creatinine concentration together using a formula-based estimation of GFR, calculated and reported by Clinical Biochemistry Laboratories. 16 Additionally in USA, a record in the National Kidney Disease Education Program (NKDEP) strongly urged clinical labs to automatically report eGFR whenever serum creatinine is arranged as a sensible approach to recognize individuals with CKD who may otherwise go untreated, and also to track people who have risk factors for CKD. The document urged that for many patients, eGFR from MDRD equation is significantly more precise than 24 hr creatinine clearance for adults except once the patient’s cerebral creatinine production is forecast to be quite abnormal. 17

Pitfalls in the interpretation of eGFR need to be considered especially with the anticipated limitation from the analytical functionality of creatinine measurement particularly when serum creatinine is close to the normal selection. 18,19 Consequently, the NSF for Renal Services and Kidney Disease urged reporting the precise numerical values of eGFR until the worth of 90 mL/min/1.73m2, with values above this amount ought to be reported just as 90 mL/min/1.73m2. But for eGFR values from the ranges ³90 and 60-89 mL/min/1.73 m2, subsequently CKD stage 1 and phase 2 respectively is considered to exist only if there’s an extra clinical or laboratory evidence of structural abnormality, according to renal ultrasound (for instance, polycystic kidney disorder ) or a functional abnormality (like persistent proteinuria or microscopic haematuria). 16 In case there aren’t any such abnormalities, GFR of ³60 mL/min/1.73m2 isn’t considered abnormal. This recommended method of regular eGFR reporting was followed largely in UK and Australia. On the flip side, the American NKDEP recommends reporting GFR values until the worth of 60 mL/min/1.73m2 and worth >60 mL/min/1.73m2 will be noted as 60 mL/min/1.73m2 and less the specific amount for the reasons mentioned previously. 17 Both guidelines consider CKD point 3-5 in eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73m2 that are far more clinical consequences and where rates that the creatinine measurement is more accurate and precise. This advocated system of coverage is chiefly followed in USA and Canada.

Reporting eGFR must be interpreted with care in severe renal failure, pregnancy, oedematous conditions, muscle wasting disorders, amputees, paraplegics, morbid fat, and malnourished men and women. 8,16 The latest version of the British National Formulary (BNF) has altered reference to creatinine clearance using eGFR. Accordingly, for many drugs for adults aged 18 years with typical body surface area, eGFR.MDRD may be used for medication dosage modification rather than creatinine clearance. Exceptions include potentially hazardous drugs with little safety margin and sufferers in extreme old,20 a recommendation which has been endorsed by Stenvens et al. 21 The MDRD equation shouldn’t be utilised in children, in which other formulae like Counahan and Schwartz equations which need comprehension of height (length) of their kid are readily available. Whilst these quotes might be utilized in some specific configurations, however regular reporting of eGFR in kids by labs might not be readily suggested.

Literature search conducted at Pubmed for the period from January 1999 to December 2011 for its research where MDRD formula was mentioned or referred showed 1224 books which reflects the effects of consciousness and rising implementation of the formulation in Medicine. At this time, there’s absolutely no doubt the eGFR.MDRD is considered to be an integral evaluation in renal function evaluation and has increasing role in preventing the clinicians regarding the renal function status. Thus, care of CKD has been changed from Secondary Care into being Primary Care priority. The interpretation of eGFR gained wise approach by requesters in the numerical value of this outcome will reflect the proportional role of the complete functioning nephrons. This implies that when a patient has an eGFR of 15 mL/min/1.73m2 then nearly 15 percent of their renal function might be undamaged. That is contrary to serum creatinine whose benchmark array fluctuates greatly based on age, gender, sex and muscular mass, which makes many interpreters oblivious and inexperienced in its own interpretation especially when the degree is a little raised, at which level it actually reflects significant renal impairment.

The rapid execution, broad approval and improved awareness from the interpretation of eGFR in comparison with serum creatinine aren’t without controversy or crucial concern at least in the clinical standpoint. It’s been observed especially in the past couple of years after the addition of eGFR reporting that there’s a rise in the amount of individuals in the Primary Care known to have CKD in addition to growth in patient’s referral to nephrologists. In UK, the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) data demonstrated that there’s a rise in the incidence of period 3-5 CKD in adults to 4 percent in 2008/2009 compared with 3.7percent in 2007-2008 and 3 percent in 2006-2007. 20 Additionally, in UK at 2006-2008, about 40 percent of patients with anticipated CKD3-5 were recognized in the principal care. 25 In Alberta, Canada, a lab registry to monitor nephrology consultations before and after the execution of eGFR reporting showed a related growth in nephrology referrals especially in people with more severe CKD, middle-aged and older (in whom reduced GFR isn’t readily discovered by raised serum creatinine alone due to the very low creatinine production) and people with comorbidities. 26 Additionally, in a Canadian population- based intervention for information from over 8 million adults over 10-year assessing clinical result for the interval coverage serum creatinine alone or together with eGFR demonstrated an increase in the amount of patients seen in consultation by nephrologists following eGFR reporting by 24 percent, the best gains were in girls (39 percent ) and in those aged ³80 years (58 percent ). 27 On the flip side, an investigation based on the NANHES III and Medicare databases demonstrated that CKD care might be still suboptimal,28 along with different polls indicate that primary care providers and internal medicine residents might be not acquainted with KDOQI guidelines.

Existence especially of early stages of CKD in lots of the people screened is beneath consideration with many nephrologists. As a result, the demand for more effective and precise screening evaluations was addressed because the presently used eGFR.MDRD way is not without dubious significance. It plays better at reduced GFR but it’s restricted by underestimating the GFR at greater worth and so may confuse people as having period 1-3 CKD. The equation established eGFR doesn’t consider in depth the anticipated normal age and gender decrease in GFR that might lead to many older areas particularly those not in danger to be tagged as having CKD. Whether CKD should be considered staged based on small decrease in eGFR in older subjects with no other risk factors could be problematic. Consequently targeted screening of at risk individuals will be clinically and cost-effective approach, a message which might be readily transmitted via public health programs.

To improve the above confounding factors and disadvantages particularly the limited precision and systematic underestimation of this eGFR at greater worth, the MDRD equation has been revisited by its original authors, Levey et al36 at 2009. Information from 10 research (n=5504) assessing serum creatinine using iothalamate clearance has been pooled to change MDRD equation into a new equation: the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) formula that was subsequently verified against information gleaned from 16 research (n=3896). The new formula has been assessed down to serum creatinene of 62 µmol/L (in girls ) and 80 µmol/L (in men). CKD-EPI was discovered to be more precise estimate of GFR at the assortment of low serum creatinine and higher GFRs.

For feminine using creatinine < 62 µmol/L:
eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2) = 144 x (Cr/61.6)-0.329 x (0.993)Age
For feminine using creatinine p 62 µmol/L:
eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2) = 144 x (Cr/61.6)-1.209 x (0.993)Age
For men using creatinine < 80 µmol/L:
eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2) = 141 x (Cr/79.2)-0.411 x (0.993)Age
For men using creatinine p 80 µmol/L:
eGFR (mL/min/1.73m2) = 141 x (Cr/79.2)-1.209 x (0.993)Age
Levey et al31 noted that CKD-EPI yielded lower estimated incidence of CKD compared to MDRD (11.5% versus 13.1percent ), mainly due to a lower estimated incidence of stage 3 CKD. They indicated the CKD-EPI formula to substitute the MDRD equation in clinical usage. In UK, a recent study has been conducted by Carter et al37 to appraise the MDRD and CKD-EPI equations in a sizable adult UK population (n = 561,400). CKD-EPI produced higher GFR and reduced CKD quotes, especially one of 18-59 year old classes with MDRD eGFRs of 45-59 mL/min/1.73m2 (Phase 3A CKD). But at ages 70 decades there was hardly any difference between the equations, and one of the very elderly CKD-EPI might actually raise CKD prevalence quotes. The median CKD-EPI GFR was significantly greater than median MDRD GFR (82 vs. 76 mL/min/1.73m2), de <0.0001). Although statistically significant at all age groups the difference diminished with age. The age-adjusted population prevalence of CKD Stages 3-5 was lower by CKD-EPI than by MDRD (4.4% vs. 4.9%).37 regardless of the benefits of CKD-EPI formulae, in UK that the MDRD equation remains universally utilized however you will find reports from labs from the USA with execution of CKD-EPI equation. 33,38 In Australia, the program of this CKD-EPI equation at the Australian, Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle (AusDiab) Study also afforded a lower estimated incidence of CKD compared using all the MDRD equation, specifically 11.5percent compared with 13.4 percent. 39 Program of CKD-EPI equation along with the other diagnostic instruments in renal medication will significantly improve the management and detection of patients with CKD.

Of added significance in this aspect is the part of the existence or absence of albuminuria from the stratification of stages of CKD, such as diagnosing, staging and observation as has been advocated from the numerous guidelines. 32 NICE has advocated for detecting proteinuria to quantify random urine albumin:creatinine ratio in preference to additional evaluations of proteinuria such as protein:creatinine ratio, 24 hour urinary total protein and reagent dipstick strip testing. 3 Both decreased eGFR and albuminuria are powerful predictors for cardiovascular events with clinical trials demonstrated that using angiotensin-converting receptor inhibitors or angiotensin receptors blockers slowed the decrease from the eGFR. 40 Additionally, attempts must be considered in the development and investigation of additional renal function tests which in parallel using eGFR reporting will concentrate on improving the results in the identification and management of CKD. The future may demonstrate an analytical improvement in creatinine dimension with its own effect in improving the sensitivity of this assay and thus eGFR reporting. Additionally, implementing and assessing different markers of renal function like measurement of serum Cystatin C along with other markers of kidney injury can increase the diagnostic and treatment function of esophageal function testing in renal medicine.

Visit:
Decision
Throughout the previous ten years, there’s been a growing interest from the guidelines from several professional medical societies involving the management and classification of CKD. Despite its limits, the execution of eGFR reporting notably in high-risk patients has considerably contributed in the premature recognition of CKD which lets the provision of appropriate treatment and thus alerting the clinicians due to the effects of chronic diseases on kidney function. There are numerous specimens for calculating eGFR from serum creatinine in adults with no requirement for urine collection. The requirement of Cockcroft and Gault equation for body fat has restricted its regular application in lab exercise. On the other hand, the simplicity of MDRD formula that does not want body fat because of eGFR calculation has led in its own rapid implementation and approval in clinical medication using recommendation towards its regular reporting jointly with serum creatinine because of renal function profile. After the debut of eGFR coverage, there’s been a paradigm change in CKD being seen as secondary maintenance condition to being principal care priority using the increase in the amount of men and women in the main care known to possess CKD, at the incidence of CKD and in patient’s referral to nephrologists. On the other hand, the equation still has its very own controversy especially in under-estimating GFR in low-normal degree of serum creatinine, in diagnosing phase 1-3 CKD, in girls, and in the older. These restrictions seem to be improved by the newest CKD-EPI equation which was clarified by the very same writers of MDRD equation Levey et al who proposed that the CKD-EPI formula to substitute the MDRD formula in clinical usage. In comparison with MDRD, the CKD-EPI produces higher GFR and reduced CKD quotes, especially one of 18-59 year old classes with eGFRs of 45-59 mL/min/1.73m2 (stage 3A CKD). Even though the MDRD equation remains universally followed globally, however use of CKD-EPI in lab practice might be expanded within the upcoming few decades. It’s also important to make sure that all healthcare professionals, both generalists and specialists, comprehend the value of the early diagnosis of kidney disorder. Physicians must be made especially aware that elderly patients and people with hypertension, diabetes, or cardiovascular disease should be screened for the presence of CKD, a message which might be readily transmitted via public health programs. Additionally, there’s an increasing awareness about the part of albuminuria/proteinuria from the stratification of stages of CKD. Lately measurement of albuminuria was advocated in several guidelines, as both decreased eGFR and albuminuria are powerful predictors for cardiovascular events and progression of renal disease. At length, constant efforts must be considered in the development and validation of their renal function tests such as analytic improvement in creatinine measurement using its effect in improving the assay sensitivity and thus eGFR reporting. Additionally, implementing and assessing different markers of renal function like measurement of serum Cystatin C along with other markers of kidney injury can increase the diagnostic and treatment function of esophageal function testing in renal medicine.

Visit:
Acknowledgements
The authors reported no conflict of interest and no funding was obtained on this job.

Visit:
References
1. Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium Lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and greater albuminuria are related to mortality and end-stage esophageal disorder. A collaborative meta-analysis of kidney disorder population cohorts. Jun;79(12):1331-1340 10.1038/ki.2010.550 [PMC article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
2. Feb;39(2)(Suppl 1):S1-S266 10.1016/ / S0272-6386(02)70081-4 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
3. Chronic Kidney Disease: Early diagnosis and control of chronic kidney disease in adults in primary and secondary care. Chronic kidney disease control in the United Kingdom: NEOERICA project effects. Jul;72(1):92-99 10.1038/ / sj.ki.5002273 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5. Zhang Q-L, Rothenbacher D. Prevalence of chronic kidney disease from population-based research: systematic review. BMC Public Health 2008;8:117 10.1186/1471-2458-8-117 [PMC article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Jan;41(1):1-12 10.1053/ / ajkd.2003.50007 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Lamb EJ, Tomson CR, Roderick PJ, Clinical Sciences Reviews Committee of this Association for Clinical Biochemistry Estimating kidney function in adults with formulae. Sep;42(Pt 5):321-345 10.1258/ / 0004563054889936 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Serum creatinine as an indicator of renal function: new insights to old theories. October;38(10):1933-1953 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Swedko PJ, Clark HD, Paramsothy K, Akbari A. Serum creatinine is an insufficient screening evaluation for renal failure in older individuals. Feb;163(3):356-360 10.1001/ / archinte.163.3.356 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Creatinine clearance as a measure of GFR at screenees for its African-American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension pilot research. Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration Utilizing standardized serum creatinine values at the alteration of diet in renal disease study equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate. Estimating glomerular filtration rate (eGFR): Advice for labs, April 2006. Estimating and coverage GFR. Grubb A, Nordin G. Remarkable measures in getting improved estimates for glomerular filtration rate. Feb;52(2):169-170 10.1373/ / clinchem.2005.062737 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. Susceptibility of glomerular filtration rate estimations to variants within creatinine methodology: a research in elderly patients. Jan;42(Pt 1):11-18 10.1258/ / 0004563053026899 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
20. O’Donoghue D, Lamb E. Undiagnosed kidney diseaseremains a significant problem in Uk. ACB News. November 2009. Issue 559. De 7. Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration Comparison of medication dosing recommendations based on measured GFR and kidney function estimating equations. Am J Kidney Dis 2009. Jul;54(1):33-42 10.1053/ / j.ajkd.2009.03.008 [PMC article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. Counahan R, Chantler C, Ghazali S, Kirkwood B, Rose F, Barratt TM. Estimation of glomerular filtration rate from plasma creatinine concentration in kids. Arch Dis Child 1976. Nov;51(11):875-878 10.1136/adc.51.11.875 [PMC article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Schwartz GJ, Haycock GB, Edelmann CM, Jr, Spitzer A. A simple estimate of glomerular filtration rate in children derived from body length and plasma creatinine. Pediatrics 1976. Aug;58(2):259-263 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Schwartz GJ, Gauthier B. A simple estimate of glomerular filtration rate in teenage boys. J Pediatr 1985. Mar;106(3):522-526 10.1016/ / S0022-3476(85)80697-1 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
25. Donoglue DO. New improvements in chronic kidney disease: consequences for lab services. Ann Clin Biochem 2009;46(suppl 1):7 [Google Scholar]
26. Hemmelgarn BR, Zhang J, Manns BJ, James MT, Quinn RR, Ravani P, et al.. Alberta Kidney Disease Network Nephrology visits and healthcare resource usage before and after reporting estimated glomerular filtration rate. JAMA 2010. Mar;303(12):1151-1158 10.1001/jama.2010.303 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Jain AK, McLeod I, Huo C, Cuerden MS, Akbari A, Tonelli M, et al.. When labs report estimated glomerular filtration rates along with serum creatinines, nephrology consults increase. Kidney Int 2009. Aug;76(3):318-323 10.1038/ / ki.2009.158 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Owen WF., Jr Patterns of care for individuals with chronic kidney disease in the United States: perishing for improvement. J Am Soc Nephrol 2003. Jul;14(7)(Suppl 2):S76-S80 10.1097/01. ASN.0000070145.00225. EC [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Lenz O, Fornoni A. Chronic kidney disease care given by US family medicine and internal medicine trainees: outcomes from an internet survey. BMC Med 2006;4:30 10.1186/1741-7015-4-30 [PMC article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
30. Agrawal V, Ghosh AK, Barnes MA, McCullough PA.. Awareness and knowledge of clinical practice guidelines for CKD among internal medicine residents: a nationwide online survey. Am J Kidney Dis 2008. Dec;52(6):1061-1069 10.1053/ / j.ajkd.2008.06.022 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Lea JP, McClellan WM, Melcher C, Gladstone E, Hostetter T. CKD risk factors reported by primary care physicians: perform guidelines make a difference? Am J Kidney Dis 2006. Jan;47(1):72-77 10.1053/ / j.ajkd.2005.09.027 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Give a Comment