Key result
The CKD-EPI and Rule formulas were the most precise for estimating 24-hour urinary creatinine excretion in hypertensive patients, with the CKD-EPI formula showing a mean bias of 0.002 g/d.
Why the study?
Estimated 24-hour urinary creatinine excretion may help convert spot urine analyte/creatinine ratios and verify completeness of 24-hour collections, but the performance of published estimating equations needed evaluation.
Does estimating 24-hour urinary creatinine excretion using various formulas accurately reflect measured 24-hour urinary creatinine excretion in hospitalized hypertensive patients?
Cross-Sectional (n=293)
No
Does estimating 24-hour urinary creatinine excretion using various formulas accurately reflect measured 24-hour urinary creatinine excretion in hospitalized hypertensive patients?
Mean Difference: 0.002 (95% CI -0.031–0.039)
p-value: p=<0.00001
The CKD-EPI and Rule formulas are the most accurate for estimating 24-hour urinary creatinine excretion in hospitalized hypertensive patients, though formula performance is highly dependent on inclusion criteria for urine collection completeness.
May inform formula choice for creatinine excretion estimates in hypertension; leaves open prospective validation before clinical adoption.
Estimated 24-hour urinary creatinine excretion (24 hrUCr) may be useful for converting spot urine analyte/creatinine ratio into estimated 24-hour urinary excretion of the evaluated analyte, and for verifying completeness of 24-hour urinary collections. We compared various published 24 hrUCr-estimating equations against measured 24 hrUCr in hospitalized hypertensive patients. 24 hrUCr was measured in 293 patients and estimated using eight formulas (CKD-EPI, Cockcroft-Gault, Walser, Goldwasser, Rule, Gerber-Mann, Kawasaki, Tanaka). We used the Pearson correlation coefficient, the Bland-Altman method, and the percentage of estimated 24 hrUCr within 15%, 30% (P30), and 50% of measured 24hUCr to compare estimated and measured 24 hrUCr. Differences between the mean bias by eight formulas were evaluated using the Friedman rank sum test. Overall, the best formulas were CKD-EPI (mean bias 0.002 g/d, P30 86%) and Rule (mean bias 0.022 g/d, P30 89%), although both tended to underestimate 24 hrUCr with higher excretion values. The Gerber-Mann formula and the Asian formulas (Tanaka, Kawasaki) were less precise in our study population but superior in an analysis restricted to subjects with highest measured 24 hrUCr per body weight. We found significant differences between 24 hrUCr-estimating equations in hypertensive patients. In addition, formula performance was critically affected by inclusion criteria based on measured 24 hrUCr per body weight.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jędrusik et al. (2019) conducted a cross-sectional in Hypertension (n=293). 24-hour urinary creatinine excretion-estimating equations (CKD-EPI, Rule, etc.) vs. Measured 24-hour urinary creatinine excretion was evaluated on Mean bias between estimated and measured 24-hour urinary creatinine excretion (Mean bias 0.002 g/d, 95% CI -0.031 to 0.039, p=<0.00001). The CKD-EPI and Rule formulas were the most precise for estimating 24-hour urinary creatinine excretion in hypertensive patients, with the CKD-EPI formula showing a mean bias of 0.002 g/d.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: