Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37753251›Full record

ArticleKidney medicine2023

Discordance Between Creatinine-Based and Cystatin C-Based Estimated GFR: Interpretation According to Performance Compared to Measured GFR.

Yeli Wang, Ogechi M Adingwupu, Michael G Shlipak, Alessandro Doria, Michelle M Estrella, Marc Froissart, Vilmundur Gudnason, Anders Grubb, Roberto Kalil, Michael Mauer and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Kidney medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Yeli WangDepartment of Nutrition, Harvard University T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Ogechi M AdingwupuDivision of Nephrology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.
Michael G ShlipakKidney Health Research Collaborative, San Francisco Veterans Affair Medical Center and University of California, San Francisco, CA.
Alessandro DoriaSection on Genetics & Epidemiology, Joslin Diabetes Center, and the Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Michelle M EstrellaDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, San Francisco VA Health Care System and University of California, San Francisco, CA.
Marc FroissartClinical Trial Unit, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Vilmundur GudnasonFaculty of Medicine, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, and the Icelandic Heart Association, Kopavogur, Iceland.
Anders GrubbDepartment of Clinical Chemistry and Pharmacology, Institute of Laboratory Medicine, Lund University, Sweden.
Roberto KalilDivision of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore MD.
Michael MauerDivisions of Pediatric and Adult Nephrology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Peter RossingSteno Diabetes Center Copenhagen and the Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jesse SeegmillerDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Josef CoreshDepartment of Epidemiology, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.
Andrew S LeveyDivision of Nephrology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.
Lesley A InkerDivision of Nephrology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA.

Funding

SPECIAL ASSAY COREP30DK036836 · NIDDK · JOSLIN DIABETES CENTER · PI JEAN E. SCHAFFER · 1986 to 2026
$50.5M
CVD Epidemiology Training Program in Behavior, the Environment and Global HealthT32HL098048 · NHLBI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY D/B/A HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI Goodarz Danaei, ERIC B RIMM · 2009 to 2026
$6.9M
Improving Kidney Function Assessment in Health and DiseaseR01DK116790 · NIDDK · TUFTS MEDICAL CENTER · PI INKER, LESLEY ANN · 2021 to 2024
$2.9M
A pilot study of fenofibrate to prevent kidney function loss in type 1 diabetesR01DK129318 · NIDDK · JOSLIN DIABETES CENTER · PI DORIA, ALESSANDRO, MAUER, S. MICHAEL · 2021 to 2023
$1.0M
NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL098048NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK036836NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK116790NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK129318
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rationale & Objective: Use of cystatin C in addition to creatinine to estimate glomerular filtration rate (estimated glomerular filtration rate based on cystatin C [eGFRcys] and estimated glomerular filtration rate based on creatinine [eGFRcr], respectively) is increasing. When eGFRcr and eGFRcys are discordant, it is not known which is more accurate, leading to uncertainty in clinical decision making. Study Design: Cross-sectional analysis. Setting & Participants: Four thousand fifty participants with measured glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) from 12 studies in North America and Europe. Exposures: Serum creatinine and serum cystatin C. Outcomes: Performance of creatinine-based and cystatin C-based glomerular filtration rate estimating equations compared to mGFR. Analytical Approach: We evaluated the accuracy of eGFRcr, eGFRcys, and the combination (eGFRcr-cys) compared to mGFR according to the magnitude of the difference between eGFRcr and eGFRcys (eGFRdiff). We used CKD-EPI (Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration) equations to estimate glomerular filtration rate. eGFRdiff was defined as eGFRcys minus eGFRcr and categorized as less than -15, -15 to <15, and ≥15 mL/min/1.73 m Results: Thirty percent of participants had discordant eGFRdiff (21.0% and 9.6% negative and positive eGFRdiffs, respectively). In the concordant eGFRdiff group, all equations displayed similar accuracy. In the negative eGFRdiff groups, eGFRcr had a large overestimation of mGFR (-13.4 [-14.5 to -12.2] mL/min/1.73 m Limitations: Few participants with major comorbid conditions. Conclusions: Discordant eGFRcr and eGFRcys are common. eGFR using the combination of creatinine and cystatin C provides the most accurate estimates among persons with discordant eGFRcr or eGFRcys.

Indexed as

creatininecystatinestimated GFRGlomerular filtration rate

Identifiers

PMID37753251
PMCPMC10518599

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.