Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30518813›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Nephrology2019

Estimated GFR: time for a critical appraisal.

Esteban Porrini, Piero Ruggenenti, Sergio Luis-Lima, Fabiola Carrara, Alejandro Jiménez, Aiko P J de Vries, Armando Torres, Flavio Gaspari, Giuseppe Remuzzi

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Nephrology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 149 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
149citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
15.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

149 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 288 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Kidney injury rates after unilateral nephrectomy in childhood-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2022
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

89 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Esteban PorriniHospital Universitario de Canarias, Tenerife, Spain. esteban.l.porrini@gmail.com.
Piero RuggenentiNephrology and Dialysis Unit, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy.
Sergio Luis-LimaHospital Universitario de Canarias, Tenerife, Spain.
Fabiola CarraraIstituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Centro di Ricerche Cliniche per le Malattie Rare "Aldo e Cele Daccò", Ranica, Bergamo, Italy.
Alejandro JiménezHospital Universitario de Canarias, Tenerife, Spain.
Aiko P J de VriesLeiden University Medical Centre, Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology, Leiden, Netherlands.
Armando TorresHospital Universitario de Canarias, Tenerife, Spain.
Flavio GaspariIstituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Centro di Ricerche Cliniche per le Malattie Rare "Aldo e Cele Daccò", Ranica, Bergamo, Italy.
Giuseppe RemuzziNephrology and Dialysis Unit, Azienda Socio Sanitaria Territoriale Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy.
Hospital Universitario de Canarias · ESIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITLeiden University · NLMario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research · ITOspedale Papa Giovanni XXIII · ITUniversidad de La Laguna · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since 1957, over 70 equations based on creatinine and/or cystatin C levels have been developed to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR). However, whether these equations accurately reflect renal function is debated. In this Perspectives article, we discuss >70 studies that compared estimated GFR (eGFR) with measured GFR (mGFR), involving ~40,000 renal transplant recipients and patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), type 2 diabetes mellitus or polycystic kidney disease. Their results show that eGFR often differed from mGFR by ±30% or more, that eGFR values incorrectly staged CKD in 30-60% of patients, and that eGFR and mGFR gave different rates of GFR decline. Errors were unpredictable, and comparable for equations based on creatinine and/or cystatin C. We argue, therefore, that the persistence of these errors (despite intensive research) suggests that the problem lies with using creatinine and/or cystatin C as markers of renal function, rather than with the mathematical methods used for GFR estimation.

Indexed as

BiomarkersCreatinineCystatin CGlomerular Filtration RateHumansKidney Function TestsRenal Insufficiency, ChronicBiomarkersCreatinineCystatin C

Identifiers

PMID30518813
OpenAlexW2903455993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.