Comparison of CCR, Cockcroft-Gault and Mdrd Formula for the Estimation of Glomerular Filtration Rate
Many organizations recommend the use of equations that provide a rapid method of assessing glomerular filtration rate (GFR) to facilitate the detection, evaluation, and management of chronic kidney diseases. Indeed, many clinical laboratories already report estimated GFR (eGFR) values whenever the s...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of Bangladesh College of Physicians & Surgeons 2016-06, Vol.33 (4), p.207-212 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 212 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 207 |
container_title | Journal of Bangladesh College of Physicians & Surgeons |
container_volume | 33 |
creator | Parvin, Mimi Khan, Md Aminul Haque Saiedullah, Muhammad Rahman, Muhammad Rezwanur Islam, Md Saiful Naznin, Lubna |
description | Many organizations recommend the use of equations that provide a rapid method of assessing glomerular filtration rate (GFR) to facilitate the detection, evaluation, and management of chronic kidney diseases. Indeed, many clinical laboratories already report estimated GFR (eGFR) values whenever the serum creatinine level is measured. To compare the predictive equations for the measurement of GFR in Bangladeshi population, we measured GFR by creatinine clearance rate (CCR) and also estimated it by Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) 4 variables equation and Cockcroft and Gault (C-G) formula in 61 Bangladeshi subjects who were referred to Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Dhaka Cantonment for the estimation of GFR by physicians during the period of March 2011 to November 2011. Results are expressed as mean ± SD and compared by two-tailed paired t test, Bland-Altman plots for bias, precision (r2), receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve, and accuracy within 15%, 30% and 50% of the measured GFR. We included 39 (63.93%) males and 22 (36.06%) females with mean age of 52±14 years. The GFR measured by CCR was 61.30±37.38 mL/min/1.73 m2 and eGFR by MDRD4 and C-G were 51.26±26.86 (P0.05) mL/min/1.73 m2 respectively. The bias was 10.55±25.34 mL/min/1.73 m2 for MDRD, 6.32±25.90 mL/min/1.73 m2 for C-G; precision was 0.5407 for MDRD, 0.5201 for C-G; the areas under the ROC curve was 0.5722 (P>0.05) for MDRD4, 0.5444 (P>0.05) for C-G. The percentages of eGFR falling within 15% and 30% of measured GFR were 30%, 52% for MDRD and 35%, 52% for C-G. Both MDRD4 and C-G showed positive bias at GFR60 mL/min/1.73 m2. The results indicate that Cockcroft-Gault formula is more accurate than MDRD4 equation in the overall GFR range, but MDRD4 appears to be more accurate at GFR |
doi_str_mv | 10.3329/jbcps.v33i4.28141 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1797746293</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4093194851</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c703-1ecbbf9318e57bc914aa59e8da257931a19ae5eba1a2d181e59e4dbe1152a10a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotkNFLwzAQxoMoOOb-AN8CvtqZa5qmeZSyTWEijL2Ha5tiZ7vUJBX8742r93Jw33d3fD9C7oGtOU_V06mqR7_-5rzL1mkBGVyRRcqZSnKei2uyAAYiYYVkt2Tl_YnF4pAJLhakKe0wouu8PVPb0rI8PNLS1p-1s21Idjj1geK5oW-Na-jWumHqkbbW0fBh6MaHbsDQzbu73g7GRd3RbdcHNwsHDOaO3LTYe7P670ty3G6O5Uuyf9-9ls_7pJaMJ2DqqmoVh8IIWdUKMkShTNFgKmQcIyg0wlQImDZQgIli1lQGQKQIDPmSPMxnR2e_JuODPtnJneNHDVJJmeWp4tEFsytG9N6ZVo8upnA_Gpj-w6kvOPUFp77g5L-sYGov</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1797746293</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of CCR, Cockcroft-Gault and Mdrd Formula for the Estimation of Glomerular Filtration Rate</title><source>Bangladesh Journals Online</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Parvin, Mimi ; Khan, Md Aminul Haque ; Saiedullah, Muhammad ; Rahman, Muhammad Rezwanur ; Islam, Md Saiful ; Naznin, Lubna</creator><creatorcontrib>Parvin, Mimi ; Khan, Md Aminul Haque ; Saiedullah, Muhammad ; Rahman, Muhammad Rezwanur ; Islam, Md Saiful ; Naznin, Lubna</creatorcontrib><description>Many organizations recommend the use of equations that provide a rapid method of assessing glomerular filtration rate (GFR) to facilitate the detection, evaluation, and management of chronic kidney diseases. Indeed, many clinical laboratories already report estimated GFR (eGFR) values whenever the serum creatinine level is measured. To compare the predictive equations for the measurement of GFR in Bangladeshi population, we measured GFR by creatinine clearance rate (CCR) and also estimated it by Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) 4 variables equation and Cockcroft and Gault (C-G) formula in 61 Bangladeshi subjects who were referred to Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Dhaka Cantonment for the estimation of GFR by physicians during the period of March 2011 to November 2011. Results are expressed as mean ± SD and compared by two-tailed paired t test, Bland-Altman plots for bias, precision (r2), receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve, and accuracy within 15%, 30% and 50% of the measured GFR. We included 39 (63.93%) males and 22 (36.06%) females with mean age of 52±14 years. The GFR measured by CCR was 61.30±37.38 mL/min/1.73 m2 and eGFR by MDRD4 and C-G were 51.26±26.86 (P<0.05), 54.98±27.21 (P>0.05) mL/min/1.73 m2 respectively. The bias was 10.55±25.34 mL/min/1.73 m2 for MDRD, 6.32±25.90 mL/min/1.73 m2 for C-G; precision was 0.5407 for MDRD, 0.5201 for C-G; the areas under the ROC curve was 0.5722 (P>0.05) for MDRD4, 0.5444 (P>0.05) for C-G. The percentages of eGFR falling within 15% and 30% of measured GFR were 30%, 52% for MDRD and 35%, 52% for C-G. Both MDRD4 and C-G showed positive bias at GFR<60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and negative bias at GFR >60 mL/min/1.73 m2. The results indicate that Cockcroft-Gault formula is more accurate than MDRD4 equation in the overall GFR range, but MDRD4 appears to be more accurate at GFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2.J Bangladesh Coll Phys Surg 2015; 33(4): 207-212</description><identifier>ISSN: 1015-0870</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2309-6365</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3329/jbcps.v33i4.28141</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dhaka: Bangladesh College of Physicians & Surgeons</publisher><subject>Health care ; Kidney diseases ; Medical screening</subject><ispartof>Journal of Bangladesh College of Physicians & Surgeons, 2016-06, Vol.33 (4), p.207-212</ispartof><rights>Copyright Bangladesh College of Physicians & Surgeons 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,4110,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Parvin, Mimi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khan, Md Aminul Haque</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saiedullah, Muhammad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rahman, Muhammad Rezwanur</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Islam, Md Saiful</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Naznin, Lubna</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of CCR, Cockcroft-Gault and Mdrd Formula for the Estimation of Glomerular Filtration Rate</title><title>Journal of Bangladesh College of Physicians & Surgeons</title><description>Many organizations recommend the use of equations that provide a rapid method of assessing glomerular filtration rate (GFR) to facilitate the detection, evaluation, and management of chronic kidney diseases. Indeed, many clinical laboratories already report estimated GFR (eGFR) values whenever the serum creatinine level is measured. To compare the predictive equations for the measurement of GFR in Bangladeshi population, we measured GFR by creatinine clearance rate (CCR) and also estimated it by Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) 4 variables equation and Cockcroft and Gault (C-G) formula in 61 Bangladeshi subjects who were referred to Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Dhaka Cantonment for the estimation of GFR by physicians during the period of March 2011 to November 2011. Results are expressed as mean ± SD and compared by two-tailed paired t test, Bland-Altman plots for bias, precision (r2), receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve, and accuracy within 15%, 30% and 50% of the measured GFR. We included 39 (63.93%) males and 22 (36.06%) females with mean age of 52±14 years. The GFR measured by CCR was 61.30±37.38 mL/min/1.73 m2 and eGFR by MDRD4 and C-G were 51.26±26.86 (P<0.05), 54.98±27.21 (P>0.05) mL/min/1.73 m2 respectively. The bias was 10.55±25.34 mL/min/1.73 m2 for MDRD, 6.32±25.90 mL/min/1.73 m2 for C-G; precision was 0.5407 for MDRD, 0.5201 for C-G; the areas under the ROC curve was 0.5722 (P>0.05) for MDRD4, 0.5444 (P>0.05) for C-G. The percentages of eGFR falling within 15% and 30% of measured GFR were 30%, 52% for MDRD and 35%, 52% for C-G. Both MDRD4 and C-G showed positive bias at GFR<60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and negative bias at GFR >60 mL/min/1.73 m2. The results indicate that Cockcroft-Gault formula is more accurate than MDRD4 equation in the overall GFR range, but MDRD4 appears to be more accurate at GFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2.J Bangladesh Coll Phys Surg 2015; 33(4): 207-212</description><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Kidney diseases</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><issn>1015-0870</issn><issn>2309-6365</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNotkNFLwzAQxoMoOOb-AN8CvtqZa5qmeZSyTWEijL2Ha5tiZ7vUJBX8742r93Jw33d3fD9C7oGtOU_V06mqR7_-5rzL1mkBGVyRRcqZSnKei2uyAAYiYYVkt2Tl_YnF4pAJLhakKe0wouu8PVPb0rI8PNLS1p-1s21Idjj1geK5oW-Na-jWumHqkbbW0fBh6MaHbsDQzbu73g7GRd3RbdcHNwsHDOaO3LTYe7P670ty3G6O5Uuyf9-9ls_7pJaMJ2DqqmoVh8IIWdUKMkShTNFgKmQcIyg0wlQImDZQgIli1lQGQKQIDPmSPMxnR2e_JuODPtnJneNHDVJJmeWp4tEFsytG9N6ZVo8upnA_Gpj-w6kvOPUFp77g5L-sYGov</recordid><startdate>20160608</startdate><enddate>20160608</enddate><creator>Parvin, Mimi</creator><creator>Khan, Md Aminul Haque</creator><creator>Saiedullah, Muhammad</creator><creator>Rahman, Muhammad Rezwanur</creator><creator>Islam, Md Saiful</creator><creator>Naznin, Lubna</creator><general>Bangladesh College of Physicians & Surgeons</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160608</creationdate><title>Comparison of CCR, Cockcroft-Gault and Mdrd Formula for the Estimation of Glomerular Filtration Rate</title><author>Parvin, Mimi ; Khan, Md Aminul Haque ; Saiedullah, Muhammad ; Rahman, Muhammad Rezwanur ; Islam, Md Saiful ; Naznin, Lubna</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c703-1ecbbf9318e57bc914aa59e8da257931a19ae5eba1a2d181e59e4dbe1152a10a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Kidney diseases</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Parvin, Mimi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khan, Md Aminul Haque</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saiedullah, Muhammad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rahman, Muhammad Rezwanur</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Islam, Md Saiful</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Naznin, Lubna</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Journal of Bangladesh College of Physicians & Surgeons</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Parvin, Mimi</au><au>Khan, Md Aminul Haque</au><au>Saiedullah, Muhammad</au><au>Rahman, Muhammad Rezwanur</au><au>Islam, Md Saiful</au><au>Naznin, Lubna</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of CCR, Cockcroft-Gault and Mdrd Formula for the Estimation of Glomerular Filtration Rate</atitle><jtitle>Journal of Bangladesh College of Physicians & Surgeons</jtitle><date>2016-06-08</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>207</spage><epage>212</epage><pages>207-212</pages><issn>1015-0870</issn><eissn>2309-6365</eissn><abstract>Many organizations recommend the use of equations that provide a rapid method of assessing glomerular filtration rate (GFR) to facilitate the detection, evaluation, and management of chronic kidney diseases. Indeed, many clinical laboratories already report estimated GFR (eGFR) values whenever the serum creatinine level is measured. To compare the predictive equations for the measurement of GFR in Bangladeshi population, we measured GFR by creatinine clearance rate (CCR) and also estimated it by Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) 4 variables equation and Cockcroft and Gault (C-G) formula in 61 Bangladeshi subjects who were referred to Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Dhaka Cantonment for the estimation of GFR by physicians during the period of March 2011 to November 2011. Results are expressed as mean ± SD and compared by two-tailed paired t test, Bland-Altman plots for bias, precision (r2), receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve, and accuracy within 15%, 30% and 50% of the measured GFR. We included 39 (63.93%) males and 22 (36.06%) females with mean age of 52±14 years. The GFR measured by CCR was 61.30±37.38 mL/min/1.73 m2 and eGFR by MDRD4 and C-G were 51.26±26.86 (P<0.05), 54.98±27.21 (P>0.05) mL/min/1.73 m2 respectively. The bias was 10.55±25.34 mL/min/1.73 m2 for MDRD, 6.32±25.90 mL/min/1.73 m2 for C-G; precision was 0.5407 for MDRD, 0.5201 for C-G; the areas under the ROC curve was 0.5722 (P>0.05) for MDRD4, 0.5444 (P>0.05) for C-G. The percentages of eGFR falling within 15% and 30% of measured GFR were 30%, 52% for MDRD and 35%, 52% for C-G. Both MDRD4 and C-G showed positive bias at GFR<60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and negative bias at GFR >60 mL/min/1.73 m2. The results indicate that Cockcroft-Gault formula is more accurate than MDRD4 equation in the overall GFR range, but MDRD4 appears to be more accurate at GFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2.J Bangladesh Coll Phys Surg 2015; 33(4): 207-212</abstract><cop>Dhaka</cop><pub>Bangladesh College of Physicians & Surgeons</pub><doi>10.3329/jbcps.v33i4.28141</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1015-0870 |
ispartof | Journal of Bangladesh College of Physicians & Surgeons, 2016-06, Vol.33 (4), p.207-212 |
issn | 1015-0870 2309-6365 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1797746293 |
source | Bangladesh Journals Online; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals |
subjects | Health care Kidney diseases Medical screening |
title | Comparison of CCR, Cockcroft-Gault and Mdrd Formula for the Estimation of Glomerular Filtration Rate |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T22%3A39%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20CCR,%20Cockcroft-Gault%20and%20Mdrd%20Formula%20for%20the%20Estimation%20of%20Glomerular%20Filtration%20Rate&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20Bangladesh%20College%20of%20Physicians%20&%20Surgeons&rft.au=Parvin,%20Mimi&rft.date=2016-06-08&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=207&rft.epage=212&rft.pages=207-212&rft.issn=1015-0870&rft.eissn=2309-6365&rft_id=info:doi/10.3329/jbcps.v33i4.28141&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E4093194851%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1797746293&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |