ArticlePloS one2020
Comparison of creatinine-based equations for estimating glomerular filtration rate in deceased donor renal transplant recipients.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEstimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is important for clinical management in kidney transplantation recipients (KTR). However, very few studies have evaluated the performance of the new GFR estimating equations (Lund-Malmö Revised-LMR, and Full Age Spectrum-FAS) in KTR.
methodsGFR was estimated (eGFR) using CKD-EPI, MDRD, LMR, and FAS equations and compared to GFR measurement (mGFR) by reference methods (inuline urinary and iohexol plasma clearance) in 395 deceased-donor KTR without corticosteroids. The equations performance was assessed using bias (mean difference of eGFR and mGFR), precision (standard deviation of the difference), accuracy (concordance correlation coefficient-CCC), and agreements (total deviation index-TDI). The area under receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) and the likelihood ratio for a positive result were calculated.
resultsIn the total population, the performance of the CKD-EPI, MDRD and FAS equations was significantly lower than the LMR equation regarding the mean [95%CI] difference in bias (-2.0 [-4.0; -1.5] versus 9.0 [7.5; 10.0], 5.0 [3.5; 6.0] and 10.0 [8.5; 11.0] mL/min/1.73m2, P<0.005) and TDI (17.10 [16.41; 17.88], 25.91 [24.66; 27.16], 21.23 [19.48; 23.13] and 25.84 [24.16; 27.57], respectively). Concerning the CCC, all equation had poor agreement (<0.800) without statically difference between them. However, all equations had excellent area under the ROC curve (>0.900), and LMR equation had the best ability to correctly predict KTR with mGFR<45 mL/min/1.73 m2 (positive likelihood ratio: 8.87 [5.79; 13.52]).
conclusionAmong a referral group of subjects KTR, LMR equation had the best mean bias and TDI, but with no significant superiority in other agreement tools. Caveat is required in the use and interpretation of PCr-based equations in this specific population.
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.