Key result
A difference between eGFR(cystatin C) and eGFR(creatinine) of ≥ 40% indicated a markedly reduced diagnostic performance of the combined cystatin C- and creatinine-based estimation of GFR.
Why the study?
Does the comparison between eGFR(cystatin C) and eGFR(creatinine) evaluate the diagnostic performance of combined GFR estimation in adult patients?
Population
857 adult patients in a Swedish-Caucasian cohort
Comparison
Comparison of separate estimations of GFR based… vs Measured GFR and combined cystatin C- and…
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
Discordance ≥40% warrants caution using combined eGFR; leaves open optimal confirmatory strategy in observational cohorts.
Cohort (n=857)
Does the comparison between eGFR(cystatin C) and eGFR(creatinine) evaluate the diagnostic performance of combined GFR estimation in adult patients?
A discordance of ≥ 40% between cystatin C- and creatinine-based eGFR indicates reduced diagnostic performance of combined equations, suggesting the need for invasive GFR measurement or single-marker estimation depending on clinical context.
Grubb et al. (2011) reported a cohort. Difference between eGFR(cystatin C) and eGFR(creatinine) ≥ 40% vs. Measured GFR (iohexol clearance) was evaluated on Diagnostic performance of combined cystatin C- and creatinine-based estimation of GFR. A difference between eGFR(cystatin C) and eGFR(creatinine) of ≥ 40% indicated a markedly reduced diagnostic performance of the combined cystatin C- and creatinine-based estimation of GFR.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: