ArticleKidney medicine2024
Cystatin C- and Creatinine-based Estimated GFR Differences: Prevalence and Predictors in the UK Biobank.
Article in Kidney medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Discordance in Creatinine- and Cystatin C-Based eGFR and Clinical Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis.JAMA · 2025Pooled it
- Overview of pseudo-acute kidney injury.Renal failure · 2026Review
- Use of Cystatin C in Tandem with Creatinine to Improve GFR Estimation and Clinical Decision Making.Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN · 2026Review
- Dual Burden of Kidney Disease and Cognitive Impairment in the Longitudinal Aging Study in India-Diagnostic Assessment of Dementia-Cohort.Kidney international reports · 2026Article
- A Systematic Review Evaluating Estimated GFR Performance in South Asian Populations.Kidney international reports · 2026Article
- Cystatin C for gentamicin dosing - a case study.Biochemia medica · 2025Article
- Effect of discrepancy in estimated renal function on vancomycin area under the blood concentration-time curve: a retrospective cohort study comparing serum creatinine and serum cystatin C.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2025Article
- Difference between estimated glomerular filtration rate based on cystatin c versus creatinine and risk of hypertension: a prospective cohort study.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Discordant Results Between Creatinine- and Cystatin C-based Equations for Estimating GFR.Kidney international reports · 2025Article
- Association between the difference in cystatin C and creatinine-based eGFR and risks of multiple cardiovascular diseases: a prospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- The Metabolism of Creatinine and Its Usefulness to Evaluate Kidney Function and Body Composition in Clinical Practice.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- Testosterone deficiency and chronic kidney disease.Journal of clinical & translational endocrinology · 2024Review
- Beyond Creatinine: Is Cystatin C the New Global Standard for Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate Evaluation?Kidney medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Rationale & Objective: Large differences between estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) based on cystatin C (eGFRcys) and creatinine (eGFRcr) occur commonly. A comprehensive evaluation of factors that contribute to these differences is needed to guide the interpretation of discrepant eGFR values. Study Design: Cohort study. Setting & Participants: 468,969 participants in the UK Biobank. Exposures: Candidate sociodemographic, lifestyle factors, comorbidities, medication usage, and physical and laboratory predictors. Outcomes: eGFRdiff, defined as eGFRcys minus eGFRcr, categorized into 3 levels: lower eGFRcys (eGFRdiff, less than -15 mL/min/1.73 m Analytical Approach: Multinomial logistic regression models were constructed to identify predictors of lower eGFRcys or lower eGFRcr. We developed 2 prediction models comprising 375,175 participants: (1) a clinical model using clinically available variables and (2) an enriched model additionally including lifestyle variables. The models were internally validated in an additional 93,794 participants. Results: Mean ± standard deviation of eGFRcys was 88 ± 16 mL/min/1.73 m Limitations: Limited generalizability. Conclusions: This study highlights the multitude of demographic, lifestyle, and health characteristics that are associated with large eGFRdiff. The clinical model may identify individuals who are likely to have discrepant eGFR values and thus should be prioritized for cystatin C testing.
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.