ArticleBMC nephrology2013
Differences in estimation of creatinine generation between renal function estimating equations in an Indian population: cross-sectional data from the Hyderabad arm of the Indian migration study.
Article in BMC nephrology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and risk factors for chronic kidney disease of unknown cause in Malawi: a cross-sectional analysis in a rural and urban population.BMC nephrology · 2020Article
- Urinary organic acids quantitated in a healthy north Indian pediatric population.Indian journal of clinical biochemistry : IJCB · 2015Article
- Higher risk of renal impairment associated with tenofovir use amongst people living with HIV in India: a comparative cohort analysis between Western India and United Kingdom.BMC infectious diseases · 2014Article
- The effect of rural-to-urban migration on renal function in an Indian population: cross-sectional data from the Hyderabad arm of the Indian Migration Study.BMC nephrology · 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
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCreatinine based formulae for estimating renal function developed in white populations may be less valid in other ethnic groups. We assessed the performance of various estimating formulae in an Indian population.
methods917 subjects were recruited from the Hyderabad arm of the Indian Migration Study. Data were collected on comorbidity, serum creatinine and body composition from DXA scans. Renal function was compared using the modified Cockcroft-Gault, MDRD and CKD-EPI formulae. 24-hour creatinine production was derived from each estimate and the agreement with measured muscle mass examined. 24-hour creatinine production estimates were compared to that derived from a formula by Rule incorporating DXA measured muscle mass. Potential systematic biases were examined by age and eGFR. We assessed the association of renal function by each formula with hypertension and self-reported measures of vascular disease.
resultsMean modified Cockcroft-Gault eCCl was 98.8 ml/min/1.73 m(2), MDRD eGFR 91.2 ml/min/1.73 m(2) and CKD-EPI eGFR 96.3 ml/min/1.73 m(2). MDRD derived 24-hour creatinine production showed the least age-related underestimation compared to the Rule formula. CKD-EPI showed a marked bias at higher eGFRs. All formulae showed similar strength associations with vascular disease and hypertension.
conclusionsOur analyses support the use of MDRD for estimating renal function in Indian populations. Further work is required to assess the predictive value of formulae for incident disease and complications of CKD.
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.