Cited by 68Chronic Kidney Disease and DiabetesClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlAcute Kidney Injury Research

Variation of serum creatinine, cystatin C, and creatinine clearance tests in persons with normal renal function

Toffaletti, John G., McDonnell, Elizabeth H.·2008·Clinica Chimica Acta

Abstract

Background To determine the potential sensitivity of several renal function tests for detecting early changes in renal function, we compared the within-individual (W-I) variation over 5 months of serum creatinine, serum cystatin C, and creatinine clearance. Methods On 31 healthy subjects, blood and timed urine specimens were collected once each month to get 6 collections. Creatinine (enzymatic) in serum and urine and cystatin C (immunonephelometric) in serum were measured and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) by creatinine clearance and the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation were calculated. To compare W-I variations between different creatinine methods, we also measured creatinine by both enzymatic and kinetic alkaline picrate methods on 15 sets of frozen samples. Results For the 31 volunteers, the mean W-I variations for serum creatinine (5.8%) and cystatin C (5.4%) were both much lower than the W-I variation of creatinine clearance (18.7%). As expected, the MDRD GFR had a similar W-I variation (6.7%) to that of serum creatinine and its values were markedly different than GFR by creatinine clearance. On the 15 sets of frozen samples, the W-I variation of creatinine measured by the enzymatic method (CV 5.2%) was slightly less than by the picrate method (CV 6.2%). Conclusions The low W-I variation of both serum cystatin C and serum creatinine suggests that serial measurements of either would detect a changes in renal function earlier than would GFR by creati…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cca.2008.05.020

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Toffaletti, J. G., & McDonnell, E. H.
Affiliations
Duke Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Toffaletti, John G.
Venue
Clinica Chimica Acta
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-09
Volume
395
Issue
1-2
Pages
115-119
ISSN
0009-8981 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2053097264
Cited by
68
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinica Chimica Acta (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Chronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Acute Kidney Injury Research
Keywords
serum creatinine, cystatin C, creatinine clearance, within-person variability, glomerular filtration rate, MDRD equation, early detection of renal dysfunction, renal function assessment, enzymatic creatinine assay, healthy volunteers
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Creatinine, Female, Glomerular Filtration Rate, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Reference Values, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Cystatins, Cystatin C

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