Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 658

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cystatin C: An Improved Estimator of Glomerular Filtration Rate?

Laterza, Omar F, Price, Christopher P, Scott, Mitchell G·2002·Clinical Chemistry

Abstract

Background: Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is routinely assessed by measuring the concentrations of endogenous serum markers such as blood urea nitrogen and serum creatinine (SCr). Although widely used, these endogenous markers are not ideal and do not perform optimally in certain clinical settings. The purpose of this review is to critically review the potential utility of cystatin C (CysC), especially in patient populations in which CysC may have an advantage over routinely used endogenous markers of GFR. Approach: In a narrative approach, we extensively review publications, primarily from the last 5 years, that address the development of methods to measure CysC, reference intervals, and the diagnostic accuracy of CysC to assess GFR. Between June 2000 and September 2001 Medline was searched using “cystatin c” as a textword, and articles that examined >75 individuals (except for renal transplant studies) and/or used accepted “gold standards” for assessing GFR were selected for inclusion. A total of 17 studies are reviewed that provide reference interval data for several populations. A total of 24 studies make conclusions about the utility of CysC vs SCr and/or creatinine clearance, with 20 providing data on the sensitivity and specificity of CysC for detecting impaired GFR. These publications are organized into subgroups that deal with specific patient populations or clinical situations. Content: This review focuses on two areas: (a) the evolution of immunoassays used to determine the concentration of CysC in serum, their analytic sensitivity, and reference intervals; and (b) the diagnostic performance of CysC against other renal markers in the general population and in specific subpopulations of patients. Summary: Studies of reference intervals for CysC overwhelmingly demonstrated that CysC values in blood are independent of age and sex. Of the 24 studies that examined clinical utility, 15 concluded that CysC is superior to SCr, whereas 9 concluded that CysC is equivalent but provides no advantage. Summary ROC plot analysis of 20 studies that provide sensitivity and specificity data strongly suggests that CysC will be superior to SCr for detecting impaired GFR. Taken together, it is clear that CysC performs at least as well as SCr in the population at large and that it is likely to be superior to SCr in specific patient 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 · 10.1093/clinchem/48.5.699

Cites

52 of 52 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 52 references

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. 1989, Kidney Int, 36, S73
  2. 1992, Clin Nephrol, 38, S20
  3. 2000, Adv Clin Chem, 35, 63
  4. 1993, Clin Chem, 39, 1885, 10.1093/clinchem/39.9.1885 · doi:10.1093/clinchem/39.9.1885
  5. 1983, Clin Chim Acta, 128, 249, 10.1016/0009-8981(83)90325-X · doi:10.1016/0009-8981(83)90325-x
  6. 1997, Clin Nephrol, 48, 104
  7. 2001, Clin Chem, 47, 2031, 10.1093/clinchem/47.11.2031 · doi:10.1093/clinchem/47.11.2031
  8. 2000, Ann Clin Biochem, 37, 49, 10.1258/0004563001901524 · doi:10.1258/0004563001901524 · Paper page
  9. 1998, Scand J Clin Lab Invest, 58, 585, 10.1080/00365519850186210 · doi:10.1080/00365519850186210
  10. 1994, Kidney Int, 46, S20
  11. 2001, Am J Kidney Dis, 37, 79, 10.1053/ajkd.2001.20628 · doi:10.1053/ajkd.2001.20628 · Paper page
  12. 2000, Clin Nephrol, 54, 203
  13. 2001, Lancet, 357, 634, 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71423-9 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)71423-9
  14. 2000, Clin Chim Acta, 297, 67, 10.1016/S0009-8981(00)00234-5 · doi:10.1016/s0009-8981(00)00234-5
  15. 1997, Clin Chem, 43, 1077, 10.1093/clinchem/43.6.1077 · doi:10.1093/clinchem/43.6.1077
  16. 1998, Clin Nephrol, 49, 221
  17. 2000, Pediatr Nephrol, 15, 105, 10.1007/s004670000421 · doi:10.1007/s004670000421
  18. 2000, Arch Dis Child, 82, 71, 10.1136/adc.82.1.71 · doi:10.1136/adc.82.1.71
  19. 2000, Pediatr Nephrol, 16, 463
  20. 1992, Semin Oncol, 19, 521
  21. 1999, Clin Chem, 45, 718
  22. 2001, Clin Chim Acta, 309, 1, 10.1016/S0009-8981(01)00415-6 · doi:10.1016/s0009-8981(01)00415-6
  23. 2000, Transplant Int, 13, 285, 10.1111/j.1432-2277.2000.tb01083.x · doi:10.1111/j.1432-2277.2000.tb01083.x
  24. 1999, Clin Nephrol, 52, 371
  25. 2000, Transplant Proc, 32, 2779, 10.1016/S0041-1345(00)01881-9 · doi:10.1016/s0041-1345(00)01881-9
  26. 1994, Arch Intern Med, 154, 201, 10.1001/archinte.1994.00420020117013 · doi:10.1001/archinte.1994.00420020117013 · Paper page
  27. 1988, Arch Intern Med, 148, 1313, 10.1001/archinte.1988.00380060077017 · doi:10.1001/archinte.1988.00380060077017
  28. 2001, J Clin Lab Anal, 15, 25, 10.1002/1098-2825(2001)15:1<25::AID-JCLA5>3.0.CO;2-Y · doi:10.1002/1098-2825(2001)15:1<25::aid-jcla5>3.0.co;2-y
  29. 2000, Lancet, 356, 1624, 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03152-4 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)03152-4

Cited by

See all 658

Metadata

Authors
Laterza, O. F., Price, C. P., & Scott, M. G.
Venue
Clinical Chemistry
Published
2002-05-01
Volume
48
Issue
5
Pages
699-707
ISSN
  • 0009-9147 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8561
OpenAlex
W2133652794
Cited by
658
References
52
FWCI
13.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: An Improved Estimator of Glomerular Filtration Rate? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/clinchem/48.5.699
The paper
Laterza, O. F., Price, C. P., & Scott, M. G. (2002). Cystatin C: An Improved Estimator of Glomerular Filtration Rate? Clinical Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/48.5.699

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.