ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2024
Comparison of different eGFR formulas to measured glomerular filtration rate using iohexol in children and adolescents with mild chronic kidney disease.
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2024. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) based on different formulas is commonly used as a bedside tool to assess kidney function in children and young adults. The purpose of this study was to perform a measurement of glomerular filtration rate (mGFR) in children with chronic kidney disease (CKD) with a standard 5-point protocol using iohexol clearance and compare it to a simplified protocol for mGFR determination and to some of the most commonly used eGFR formulas. A 5-point standard protocol using iohexol clearance was used for determination of mGFR in 50 children with mild stages of CKD. The result was compared to 2- and 3-point sampling protocol as well as with some standard children eGFR formulas. We calculated the prediction performance for eGFR formulas to distinguish CKD1 and CKD 2 stages, formulas' accuracy, and cutoff values. Data were prospectively collected. All eGFR formulas exhibited a statistically significant positive correlation with mGFR. The best correlation was found with CKID2012 eGFR formula and with cystatin C-based eGFR formulas. The correlation between standard and simplified protocols for mGFR determination was also strong, while creatinine clearance did not prove to be a reliable method for estimating GFR. The error distribution with simplified protocols was not dispersed. The prediction value was strong for CKID2012 and bedside Schwartz formula. Conclusion: Fewer sampling points can be safely used for measuring GFR in children. eGFR formulas that are not based solely on creatinine should be considered more often in GFR estimation. What is Known? • Iohexol clearance is an established method of measuring GFR in children and adolescents using different protocols. • Estimating GFR in children and adolescents is troublesome and is done using different formulas with anthropometric and biochemical markers in children and adolescents. What is New? • Iohexol measurement with two or three blood withdrawals can reliably distinguish between CKD1 and CKD2 patients. • eGFR formulas have moderate reliability to predict distinguish between CKD1 and CKD2 patients, of which CKID2012 and bedside Schwartz formula were the most accurate in our study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39725794What 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.