Validation of the Lund-Malmö, Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology (CKD-EPI) and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equations to estimate glomerular filtration rate in a large Swedish clinical population.

Jonas Björk, Ian Jones, Ulf Nyman, Per Sjöström
{"title":"Validation of the Lund-Malmö, Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology (CKD-EPI) and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equations to estimate glomerular filtration rate in a large Swedish clinical population.","authors":"Jonas Björk,&nbsp;Ian Jones,&nbsp;Ulf Nyman,&nbsp;Per Sjöström","doi":"10.3109/00365599.2011.644859","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to validate externally the Swedish Lund-Malmö revised creatinine-based glomerular filtration rate (GFR) equations (LM Revised) in a Swedish cohort in comparison with the North American Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology (CKD-EPI) equations.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>The study included 1397 examinations [median age 61 years, median body mass index (BMI) 26 kg/m(2)] in 996 patients referred for iohexol clearance (median 44 ml/min/1.73 m(2)). Bias, precision [interquartile range (IQR)], accuracy expressed as percentage of estimates ± 10% (P(10)) and ± 30% (P(30)) of measured GFR, and classification ability for five GFR stages (<15, 15-29, 30-59, 60-89 and ≥90 ml/min/1.73 m(2)) were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, all three equations performed satisfactorily: LM Revised, MDRD, CKD-EPI showed, respectively, a median bias of -5.8%, -2.2% and 1.7%, IQR 11.9, 12.3 and 11.7 ml/min/1.73 m(2), P(10) 35%, 34% and 38%, P(30) 84%, 79% and 79% and correctly classified GFR stages 68%, 65% and 69%. LM Revised was at least as accurate in terms of P(30) as the other equations at GFR intervals <90, while CKD-EPI was the only unbiased and the most accurate equation at ≥90 ml/min/1.73 m(2). LM Revised was more stable in terms of bias and accuracy across age and BMI groups than MDRD and CKD-EPI. Both MDRD and CKD-EPI overestimated measured GFR among elderly patients and in the small group of underweight men.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The ideal all-purpose GFR prediction equation does not exist. LM Revised should be preferred in patients with suspected or known renal insufficiency, while CKD-EPI is most useful in settings where patients with no a priori suspicion of renal impairment are evaluated. Differences in creatinine measurements between laboratories may limit the generalizability of the present validation.</p>","PeriodicalId":21543,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology","volume":"46 3","pages":"212-22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3109/00365599.2011.644859","citationCount":"51","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3109/00365599.2011.644859","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2012/1/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 51

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to validate externally the Swedish Lund-Malmö revised creatinine-based glomerular filtration rate (GFR) equations (LM Revised) in a Swedish cohort in comparison with the North American Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology (CKD-EPI) equations.

Material and methods: The study included 1397 examinations [median age 61 years, median body mass index (BMI) 26 kg/m(2)] in 996 patients referred for iohexol clearance (median 44 ml/min/1.73 m(2)). Bias, precision [interquartile range (IQR)], accuracy expressed as percentage of estimates ± 10% (P(10)) and ± 30% (P(30)) of measured GFR, and classification ability for five GFR stages (<15, 15-29, 30-59, 60-89 and ≥90 ml/min/1.73 m(2)) were compared.

Results: Overall, all three equations performed satisfactorily: LM Revised, MDRD, CKD-EPI showed, respectively, a median bias of -5.8%, -2.2% and 1.7%, IQR 11.9, 12.3 and 11.7 ml/min/1.73 m(2), P(10) 35%, 34% and 38%, P(30) 84%, 79% and 79% and correctly classified GFR stages 68%, 65% and 69%. LM Revised was at least as accurate in terms of P(30) as the other equations at GFR intervals <90, while CKD-EPI was the only unbiased and the most accurate equation at ≥90 ml/min/1.73 m(2). LM Revised was more stable in terms of bias and accuracy across age and BMI groups than MDRD and CKD-EPI. Both MDRD and CKD-EPI overestimated measured GFR among elderly patients and in the small group of underweight men.

Conclusion: The ideal all-purpose GFR prediction equation does not exist. LM Revised should be preferred in patients with suspected or known renal insufficiency, while CKD-EPI is most useful in settings where patients with no a priori suspicion of renal impairment are evaluated. Differences in creatinine measurements between laboratories may limit the generalizability of the present validation.

验证Lund-Malmö,慢性肾脏疾病流行病学(CKD-EPI)和肾脏疾病饮食改变(MDRD)方程在瑞典临床人群中估计肾小球滤过率。
目的:本研究的目的是在瑞典队列中验证瑞典Lund-Malmö修订的基于肌酐的肾小球滤过率(GFR)方程(LM修订),并与北美肾脏疾病饮食修改(MDRD)和慢性肾脏疾病流行病学(CKD-EPI)方程进行比较。材料和方法:本研究纳入996例碘己醇清除率(中位44 ml/min/1.73 m(2))的1397例检查[中位年龄61岁,中位体重指数(BMI) 26 kg/m(2)]。偏倚、精度[四分位数范围(IQR)]、准确度表示为估计GFR的百分比±10% (P(10))和±30% (P(30)),以及五个GFR分期的分类能力(结果:总体而言,所有三个方程都令人满意:LM Revised、MDRD、CKD-EPI分别显示中位偏倚为-5.8%、-2.2%和1.7%,IQR分别为11.9、12.3和11.7 ml/min/1.73 m(2), P(10) 35%、34%和38%,P(30) 84%、79%和79%,正确分类GFR分期为68%、65%和69%。修正LM在GFR区间内的P(30)至少与其他方程一样准确。结论:不存在理想的通用GFR预测方程。LM修订版应优先用于怀疑或已知肾功能不全的患者,而CKD-EPI在评估没有先验肾功能损害怀疑的患者时最有用。不同实验室间肌酐测量值的差异可能会限制目前验证的普遍性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology
Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3 months
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信