ReviewJornal brasileiro de nefrologia
Critical analysis of the estimated glomerular filtration rate.
Review in Jornal brasileiro de nefrologia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Recommendations of the Brazilian Society of Nephrology for the management of chronic kidney disease in primary health care.Jornal brasileiro de nefrologiaGuideline
- Development of a Simple Formula for Identifying Reduced Fat-Free Mass in Health Screening Participants.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Leveraging Multiomic Signatures to Predict Body Composition.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Kidney function is primarily assessed through glomerular filtration rate (GFR), with serum creatinine being the most commonly used marker in clinical practice. However, creatinine levels can be influenced by factors such as age, sex, muscle mass, and diet, which may affect the accuracy of estimated GFR (eGFR). The CKD-EPI formula is widely used due to its performance across various stages of kidney function, and the 2021 update removed race correction. While this change is important, contributing to minimizing longstanding healthcare disparities, it may still lead to challenges in interpreting results, particularly in certain populations. Estimated GFR based on the combination of serum creatinine and cystatin C was associated with greater accuracy compared with the use of each biomarker alone, and is beneficial for patients with conditions that affect creatinine levels. It should be noted that cystatin C may also be influenced by factors such as inflammation and thyroid dysfunction. In the future, it is possible that such formulas include multiple biomarkers to further improve accuracy. However, widespread adoption of these approaches will require validation and evaluation of cost-effectiveness. When interpreting eGFR results, it is crucial to account for individual factors such as muscle mass, age, and comorbid conditions. In cases of extreme muscle mass or other complicating factors, measured GFR may be necessary. Ultimately, eGFR is a useful screening tool, but it is an estimation of GFR, then clinical judgement and individualized approaches remain essential for accurate assessment and management of kidney function.
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.