ArticleJournal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures)2026
Impact of creatinine measurement methods on eGFR and GFR category assignment.
Article in Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures), 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate measurement of serum creatinine (SCr) is critical in estimating glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and classifying kidney function. This study evaluated the analytical differences between the enzymatic and Jaffe methods for SCr measurement and their impact on eGFR estimation using two widely applied equations: CKD-EPI and EKFC. Methods: The study included 427 patients over 40 years old. SCr was measured using both enzymatic and Jaffe methods on the Alinity c platform. eGFR was calculated with the CKD-EPI (2009) and EKFC equations. Agreement between methods was assessed using Bland-Altman and Passing-Bablok regression. eGFR differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and multiple linear regression. Agreement in GFR category classification was evaluated using weighted kappa and Kendall's tau. Results: While the mean difference between methods was small, both systematic and proportional biases were statistically significant. eGFR values differed significantly between methods in both sexes (p < 0.01), regardless of the equation used. ΔeGFR was significantly associated with SCr values, but not with age. Although overall agreement in GFR categories was high (kappa > 0.91), method-dependent reclassification of patients was observed, which may influence CKD diagnosis and clinical decision-making. Conclusions: Even minor analytical differences between enzymatic and Jaffe SCr measurements can lead to clinically relevant discrepancies in GFR categorization. These findings highlight the need for harmonization in laboratory methods to ensure consistent reporting and patient management.
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.