ArticleScientific reports2025
Development and validation of a new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate in Argentinian adults.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Critical analysis of the estimated glomerular filtration rate.Jornal brasileiro de nefrologiaReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Latin Americans are underrepresented in the current equations used to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and the applicability of their predictions to this population may therefore be questionable. The objective of this study was to develop a new equation to estimate GFR based on data from Argentina. A cross-sectional study was conducted. We included 583 Argentinian adults in development sample (DS) and 78 in temporary validation sample (TVS). Urinary iothalamate clearance (reference method), and different predictive variables were used to develop candidate equations to estimate GFR. The performance was assessed through 10-fold cross-validation in DS, and by direct validation in TVS, using root mean squared error (RMSE), correlation (r), bias, P15, P30 and correct classification percentage (CC%) in CKD stages. The Argentinian equation (AE) chosen is based on a quasi-likelihood model which predicts GFR from creatinine, age, sex, single kidney, albumin and urea. Within the previous creatinine based equations (MDRD, MCQ, CKD-EPI and EKFC), the ones with the best performance were CKD-EPI 2009 and 2021. In the DS, AE showed lower RMSE, similar r, higher P15, median bias closer to zero and higher CC% compared to CKD-EPI 2009, and very slight differences in comparison to CKD-EPI 2021. In the TVS, AE presented lower RMSE, higher (or equal) r, P30 and CC%, and median bias closer to 0 compared to CKD-EPI in its two versions. In addition, it presented higher P15 than CKD-EPI 2009. In conclusion, AE presented a better performance to estimate GFR in Argentinian people and its use could have a positive impact on the clinical management of these patients.
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.