Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 988

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Risk Prediction Using the CKD-EPI Equation and the MDRD Study Equation for Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate

Open access
Matsushita, Kunihiro, Mahmoodi, Bakhtawar K., Woodward, Mark, Emberson, Jonathan R., Jafar, Tazeen H., Jee, Sun Ha, Polkinghorne, Kevan R., Shankar, Anoop, Smith, David H., Tonelli, Marcello, Warnock, David G., Wen, Chi-Pang, Coresh, Josef, Gansevoort, Ron T., Hemmelgarn, Brenda R., Levey, Andrew S., Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium, for the·2012·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.2012.3954
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

CONTEXT: The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation more accurately estimates glomerular filtration rate (GFR) than the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study equation using the same variables, especially at higher GFR, but definitive evidence of its risk implications in diverse settings is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate risk implications of estimated GFR using the CKD-EPI equation compared with the MDRD Study equation in populations with a broad range of demographic and clinical characteristics. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A meta-analysis of data from 1.1 million adults (aged ≥ 18 years) from 25 general population cohorts, 7 high-risk cohorts (of vascular disease), and 13 CKD cohorts. Data transfer and analyses were conducted between March 2011 and March 2012. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All-cause mortality (84,482 deaths from 40 cohorts), cardiovascular mortality (22,176 events from 28 cohorts), and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) (7644 events from 21 cohorts) during 9.4 million person-years of follow-up; the median of mean follow-up time across cohorts was 7.4 years (interquartile range, 4.2-10.5 years). RESULTS: Estimated GFR was classified into 6 categories (≥90, 60-89, 45-59, 30-44, 15-29, and <15 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) by both equations. Compared with the MDRD Study equation, 24.4% and 0.6% of participants from general population cohorts were reclassified to a higher and lower estimated GFR category, respectively, by the CKD-EPI equation, and the prevalence of CKD stages 3 to 5 (estimated GFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) was reduced from 8.7% to 6.3%. In estimated GFR of 45 to 59 mL/min/1.73 m(2) by the MDRD Study equation, 34.7% of participants were reclassified to estimated GFR of 60 to 89 mL/min/1.73 m(2) by the CKD-EPI equation and had lower incidence rates (per 1000 person-years) for the outcomes of interest (9.9 vs 34.5 for all-cause mortality, 2.7 vs 13.0 for cardiovascular mortality, and 0.5 vs 0.8 for ESRD) compared with those not reclassified. The corresponding adjusted hazard ratios were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.74-0.86) for all-cause mortality, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.65-0.82) for cardiovascular mortality, and 0.49 (95% CI, 0.27-0.88) for ESRD. Similar findings were observed in other estimated GFR categories by the MDRD Study equation. Net reclassification improvement based on estimated GFR categories was significantly positive for all outcomes (range, 0.06-0.13; all P < .001). Net reclassification improvement was similarly positive in most subgroups defined by age (<65 years and ≥65 years), sex, race/ethnicity (white, Asian, and black), and presence or absence of diabetes and hypertension. The results in the high-risk and CKD cohorts were largely consistent with the general population cohorts. CONCLUSION: The CKD-EPI equation classified fewer individuals as having CKD and more accurately categorized the risk for mortality and ESRD than did the MDRD Study equation across a broad range of populations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2012.3954

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Matsushita, K., Mahmoodi, B. K., Woodward, M., Emberson, J. R., Jafar, T. H., Jee, S. H., Polkinghorne, K. R., Shankar, A., Smith, D. H., Tonelli, M., Warnock, D. G., Wen, C.-P., Coresh, J., Gansevoort, R. T., Hemmelgarn, B. R., Levey, A. S., & Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium, F. T.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2012-05-09
Volume
307
Issue
18
Pages
1941-51
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.2012.3954
OpenAlex
W2081231656
Cited by
988
References
5
FWCI
67.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.