Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 980

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cystatin C versus Creatinine in Determining Risk Based on Kidney Function

Open access
Shlipak, Michael G., Matsushita, Kunihiro, Ärnlöv, Johan, Inker, Lesley A., Katz, Ronit, Polkinghorne, Kevan R., Rothenbacher, Dietrich, Sarnak, Mark J., Astor, Brad C., Coresh, Josef, Levey, Andrew S., Gansevoort, Ron T.·2013·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adding the measurement of cystatin C to that of serum creatinine to determine the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) improves accuracy, but the effect on detection, staging, and risk classification of chronic kidney disease across diverse populations has not been determined. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of 11 general-population studies (with 90,750 participants) and 5 studies of cohorts with chronic kidney disease (2960 participants) for whom standardized measurements of serum creatinine and cystatin C were available. We compared the association of the eGFR, as calculated by the measurement of creatinine or cystatin C alone or in combination with creatinine, with the rates of death (13,202 deaths in 15 cohorts), death from cardiovascular causes (3471 in 12 cohorts), and end-stage renal disease (1654 cases in 7 cohorts) and assessed improvement in reclassification with the use of cystatin C. RESULTS: In the general-population cohorts, the prevalence of an eGFR of less than 60 ml per minute per 1.73 m(2) of body-surface area was higher with the cystatin C-based eGFR than with the creatinine-based eGFR (13.7% vs. 9.7%). Across all eGFR categories, the reclassification of the eGFR to a higher value with the measurement of cystatin C, as compared with creatinine, was associated with a reduced risk of all three study outcomes, and reclassification to a lower eGFR was associated with an increased risk. The net reclassification improvement with the measurement of cystatin C, as compared with creatinine, was 0.23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.28) for death and 0.10 (95% CI, 0.00 to 0.21) for end-stage renal disease. Results were generally similar for the five cohorts with chronic kidney disease and when both creatinine and cystatin C were used to calculate the eGFR. CONCLUSIONS: The use of cystatin C alone or in combination with creatinine strengthens the association between the eGFR and the risks of death and end-stage renal disease across diverse populations. (Funded by the National Kidney Foundation and others.).

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa1214234

Cites

57 of 57 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 57 references

Cited by

See all 980

Metadata

Authors
Shlipak, M. G., Matsushita, K., Ärnlöv, J., Inker, L. A., Katz, R., Polkinghorne, K. R., Rothenbacher, D., Sarnak, M. J., Astor, B. C., Coresh, J., Levey, A. S., & Gansevoort, R. T.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2013-09-05
Volume
369
Issue
10
Pages
932-943
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2123775770
Cited by
980
References
57
FWCI
62.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Cystatin C versus Creatinine in Determining Risk Based on Kidney Function. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa1214234
The paper
Shlipak, M. G., Matsushita, K., Ärnlöv, J., Inker, L. A., Katz, R., Polkinghorne, K. R., Rothenbacher, D., Sarnak, M. J., Astor, B. C., Coresh, J., Levey, A. S., & Gansevoort, R. T. (2013). Cystatin C versus Creatinine in Determining Risk Based on Kidney Function. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1214234

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.