Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 306

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

Risk Implications of the New CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) Equation Compared With the MDRD Study Equation for Estimated GFR: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study

Open access
Matsushita, Kunihiro, Selvin, Elizabeth, Bash, Lori D., Astor, Brad C., Coresh, Josef·2010·American Journal of Kidney Diseases

Abstract

Background The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) recently published an equation for estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) using the same variables (serum creatinine, age, gender and race) as the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study (MDRD) equation. Although the CKD-EPI equation estimates GFR more precisely as compared with the MDRD equation, whether this equation improves risk prediction is unknown. Study Design Prospective cohort study, the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. Setting & Participants 13,905 middle-aged participants without a history of cardiovascular disease with median follow-up of 16.9 years. Predictor eGFR Outcomes & Measurements We compared the association of eGFR in categories (≥120, 90–119, 60–89, 30–59, <30 ml/min/1.73m2) by the CKD-EPI and MDRD equations with risk of incident end-stage renal disease (ESRD), all-cause mortality, coronary heart disease (CHD), and stroke. Results Median of eGFRCKD-EPI was higher than that of eGFRMDRD (97.6 vs. 88.8 ml/min/1.73m2, P<0.001). The CKD-EPI equation reclassified 44.9% (n=3,079) and 43.5% (n=151) of participants with eGFRMDRD 60–89 and 30–59, respectively, upward to a higher eGFR category but no one with eGFRMDRD 90–119 or <30, lowering the prevalence of CKD stage 3–5 from 2.7% to 1.6%. Participants with eGFRMDRD 30–59 who were reclassified upward had lower risk as compared to those who were not reclassified (ESRD incidence rate ratio, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.03–0.33], all-cause mortality, 0.30 [0.19–0.48], CHD, 0.36 [0.21–0.61], stroke, 0.50 [0.24–1.01]). Similar results were observed for participants with eGFRMDRD 60–89. More frequent reclassification of younger, female, and white participants explained some of these trends. Net reclassification improvement among participants with eGFR <120 was positive for all outcomes (P<0.001). Limitations Limited number of cases with eGFR <60 and no measurement of albuminuria. Conclusions The CKD-EPI equation more appropriately categorized individuals with respect to long-term clinical risk as compared to the MDRD equation, suggesting improved clinical usefulness in this middle-aged population.

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 · 10.1053/j.ajkd.2009.12.016

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

Metadata

Authors
Matsushita, K., Selvin, E., Bash, L. D., Astor, B. C., & Coresh, J.
Venue
American Journal of Kidney Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-04
Volume
55
Issue
4
Pages
648-659
ISSN
0272-6386 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2023141934
Cited by
306
References
5
FWCI
28.47
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Risk Implications of the New CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) Equation Compared With the MDRD Study Equation for Estimated GFR: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1053/j.ajkd.2009.12.016
The paper
Matsushita, K., Selvin, E., Bash, L. D., Astor, B. C., & Coresh, J. (2010). Risk Implications of the New CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) Equation Compared With the MDRD Study Equation for Estimated GFR: The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study. American Journal of Kidney Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2009.12.016

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.