ArticleCardiorenal medicine2026
Comparative Prognostic Assessment of European Kidney Function Consortium Equations for Mortality Prediction: A Population-Based Cohort Study.
Article in Cardiorenal medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe European Kidney Function Consortium (EKFC) has introduced equations for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) using serum creatinine (Cr) and cystatin C (Cys). While their diagnostic accuracy is established, their comparative prognostic value for long-term mortality in the general population is not well defined. This study compared the prognostic performance of three EKFC equations - creatinine-based (EKFC-eGFRcr), Cys-based (EKFC-eGFRcys), and the combined (EKFC-eGFRcrcys) model - for predicting all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality.
methodsWe analyzed a population-based cohort of 4,519 participants from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2002. eGFR was calculated using all three EKFC variations (EKFC-eGFRcr, EKFC-eGFRcys, and EKFC-eGFRcrcys). The primary and secondary endpoints were all-cause and CV mortality, respectively, through December 31, 2019. Predictive improvements were evaluated using integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), net reclassification improvement (NRI), and number needed to measure (NNM).
resultsThe eGFR value calculated by the EKFC-eGFRcys, EKFC-eGFRcr, and EKFC-eGFRcrcys was 78.92 ± 22.98, 84.45 ± 23.21, and 81.68 ± 22.13 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively. Over a median follow-up of 211 months, all three eGFR models were independent predictors of mortality (all p < 0.001). Restricted cubic spline regression revealed significant non-linear, inverse associations between all eGFR measures and adjusted mortality risks (all p for non-linearity < 0.001). Compared to EKFC-eGFRcr, EKFC-eGFRcys significantly improved risk reclassification for all-cause mortality (categorical NRI = 15.9%; 95% CI: 14.1-17.8%; NNM = 7). The combined EKFC-eGFRcrcys also outperformed the Cr-only model (NRI = 8.9%; NNM = 12). However, EKFC-eGFRcys demonstrated modestly better performance than the combined equation (NRI = 7.0%; NNM = 15), suggesting limited incremental value in adding Cr to Cys. The superiority of EKFC-eGFRcys was primarily driven by improved classification of non-events.
conclusionThe EKFC-eGFRcys equation provides superior prognostic value for all-cause and CV mortality compared to both Cr-based and combined EKFC equations. Notably, the combined model offered no prognostic advantage over Cys alone. These findings highlight the clinical importance of Cys-based eGFR for accurate risk stratification in the general population.
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.