ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Europe2026
Performance of estimated glomerular filtration rate equations across ethnic groups in the AIM CKD UK cohort: a multicentre cross-sectional study.
Article in The Lancet regional health. Europe, 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
33 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate assessment of kidney function using estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is fundamental for chronic kidney disease diagnosis and management, although performance is variable in African and Asian cohorts. We evaluated creatinine-based eGFR performance in an ethnically diverse United Kingdom cohort. Methods: We conducted a multi-centre, cross-sectional study. We included adults who had paired measured GFR (mGFR) and serum creatinine tests between 2009 and 2022. eGFR was calculated using five validated creatinine-based equations. The primary outcome was eGFR agreement with mGFR determined by assessing correlation, difference, precision and 30% accuracy (P30) with stratification by ethnicity. Findings: The study included 15,879 participants (mean age 54 ± 16 years; 8893/15,879 (56%) male). On average, all equations overestimated mGFR. There were significant variations in difference (p < 0.001) and accuracy (p < 0.001) between all equations. Lund-Malmo Revised (LMR) had the least difference (1.4 mL/min/1.73 m Interpretation: LMR and EKFC showed improved agreement with mGFR, particularly in South Asians and young adults. Further prospective validation is recommended to support changes in clinical practice. Funding: Kidney Research UK.
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.