ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2012
Are cystatin C-based equations superior to creatinine-based equations for estimating GFR in Chinese elderly population?
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Creatinine and Cystatin C to Estimate Renal Function in Geriatric and Frail Patients.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A risk scoring system for the decreased glomerular filtration rate in Chinese general population.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2020Article
- Accuracy of glomerular filtration rate estimationequations in patients with hematopathy.Journal of biomedical research · 2017Article
- Establishing the presence or absence of chronic kidney disease: Uses and limitations of formulas estimating the glomerular filtration rate.World journal of methodology · 2017Review
- Evaluation of glomerular filtration rate by different equations in Chinese elderly with chronic kidney disease.International urology and nephrology · 2017Article
- Evaluation of methods based on creatinine and cystatin C to estimate glomerular filtration rate in chronic kidney disease.International urology and nephrology · 2014Article
- Acute kidney injury after radical gastrectomy: a single center study.International urology and nephrology · 2014Article
- Application of creatinine- and/or cystatin C-based glomerular filtration rate estimation equations in elderly Chinese.Clinical interventions in aging · 2014Article
- Evaluation of the serum cystatin C values in prediction of indications for hemodialysis in patients with chronic renal failure.International urology and nephrology · 2014Article
- Comparison of serum cystatin C and creatinine changes after cardiopulmonary bypass in patients with normal preoperative kidney function.International urology and nephrology · 2013Article
- Article
- Using mathematical algorithms to modify glomerular filtration rate estimation equations.PloS one · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCystatin C has been proposed as a surrogate marker of kidney function. The elderly population accounts for the largest proportion of chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic value of serum cystatin C and compare the applicability of cystatin C-based equations with serum creatinine (Scr)-based equations for estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR).
methodsThe estimated GFR (eGFR) values from six cystatin C-based equations (Tan, MacIsaac, Ma, Stevens1-3) and three Scr-based equations (CG, MDRD, CKD-EPI) were compared with the reference GFR (rGFR) values from 99mTc-DTPA renal dynamic imaging method.
resultsA total of 110 elderly Chinese (60-92 year, 71.05±7.62 year) were enrolled. Cystatin C had better diagnostic value than Scr (relationship coefficient with rGFR: cystatin C -0.847 vs. Scr -0.729, P<0.01; sensitivity: cystatin C 0.90 vs. Scr 0.55, P<0.01; AUCROC: cystatin C 0.857 vs. Scr 0.757, P<0.01). All the equations predicted GFR more accurately for rGFR≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2 than for rGFR<60 ml/min/1.73 m2. Most equations had acceptable accuracy. The cystatin C-based equations deviated from rGFR by -12.78 ml/min/1.73 m2 to -2.12 ml/min/1.73 m2, with accuracy varying from 64.6 to 82.7%. The Scr-based equations deviated from rGFR by -5.37 ml/min/1.73 m2 to -0.68 ml/min/1.73 m2, with accuracy varying from 77.3 to 79.1%. The CKD-EPI, MacIsaac and Ma equations predicted no bias with rGFR (P>0.05), with higher accuracy and lower deviation in the total group. The MacIsaac, CKD-EPI and Stevens3 equations could be optimal for those with normal and mildly impaired kidney function, whereas the Ma equation for those with CKD.
conclusionCystatin C is a promising kidney function marker. However, not all cystatin C-based equations could be superior to the Scr-equations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.