Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 413

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Comparison of Prediction Equations for Estimating Glomerular Filtration Rate in Adults without Kidney Disease

Lin, Julie, Knight, Eric L., Hogan, Mary Lou, Singh, Ajay K.·2003·Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

Abstract

The ability of the Modification of Renal Disease (MDRD) equation to predict GFR when compared with multiple other prediction equations in healthy subjects without known kidney disease was analyzed. Between May 1995 and December 2001, a total of 117 healthy individuals underwent (125)I-iothalamate or (99m)Tc-diethylenetriamine-pentaacetic acid (DTPA) renal studies as part of a routine kidney donor evaluation at either Brigham and Women's Hospital or Boston Children's Hospital. On chart review, 100 individuals had sufficient data for analysis. The MDRD 1, MDRD 2 (simplified MDRD equation), Cockcroft-Gault (CG), Cockcroft-Gault corrected for GFR (CG-GFR), and other equations were tested. The median absolute difference in ml/min per 1.73 m(2) between calculated and measured GFR was 28.7 for MDRD 1, 18.5 for MDRD 2, 33.1 for CG, and 28.6 for CG-GFR in the (125)I-iothalamate group and was 31.1 for MDRD 1, 38.2 for MDRD 2, 22.0 for CG, and 31.1 for CG-GFR in the (99m)Tc-DTPA group. Bias was -0.5, -3.3, 25.6, and 5.0 for MDRD 1, MDRD 2, CG, and CG-GFR, respectively, in subjects who received (125)I-iothalamate and -33.2, -36.5, 6.0, and -15.0 for MDRD 1, MDRD 2, CG, and CG-GFR, respectively, in those who received (99m)Tc-DTPA studies. Precision testing, as measured by linear regression, yielded R(2) values of 0.04 for CG, 0.05 for CG-GFR, 0.15 for MDRD 1, and 0.14 for MDRD in those who underwent (125)I-iothalamate studies and 0.18 for CG, 0.21 for CG-GFR, 0.40 for MDRD 1, and 0.38 for MDRD 2 for those who underwent (99m)Tc-DTPA studies. The MDRD equations were more accurate within 30 and 50% of the measured GFR compared with the CG and CG-GFR equations. When compared with the CG equation, the MDRD equations are more precise and more accurate for predicting GFR in healthy adults. The MDRD equations, however, consistently underestimate GFR, whereas the CG equations consistently overestimate measured GFR in people with normal renal function. In potential kidney donors, prediction equations may not be sufficient for estimating GFR; radioisotope studies may be needed for a better assessment of GFR. Further studies are needed to derive and assess GFR prediction equations in people with normal or mildly impaired renal function.

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 · 10.1097/01.asn.0000088721.98173.4b

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 413

Metadata

Authors
Lin, J., Knight, E. L., Hogan, M. L., & Singh, A. K.
Venue
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Published
2003-10
Volume
14
Issue
10
Pages
2573-2580
ISSN
1046-6673 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2166452986
Cited by
413
References
1
FWCI
20.35
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: A Comparison of Prediction Equations for Estimating Glomerular Filtration Rate in Adults without Kidney Disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.asn.0000088721.98173.4b
The paper
Lin, J., Knight, E. L., Hogan, M. L., & Singh, A. K. (2003). A Comparison of Prediction Equations for Estimating Glomerular Filtration Rate in Adults without Kidney Disease. Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.asn.0000088721.98173.4b

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.