The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Estimated GFR. Comparison of five algorithms: implications for drug dosing
Abstract
AIMS: 'Clearance' is an accepted surrogate for glomerular filtration rate (GFR) that describes the relation between the serum/plasma concentration of a substance, for example, creatinine, and its urinary excretion rate. On a population level the GFR can be estimated from the creatinine concentration by regression analysis. Such estimates inevitably increase the uncertainty compared with the measured quantity, for example, creatinine. Reliable estimates of GFR (eGFR) are crucial for proper administration of drugs with small therapeutic 'windows' and require a transformation of 'normalised' GFR to 'individual' GFR using the individual's anthropometric data. By simulation we compare some common algorithms and discuss their feasibility for drug dosing. METHODS: We compared four algorithms for normalised eGFR and one for individual eGFR in a Caucasian man defined by age and simulated the outcome of different S-Creatinine concentrations. Normalised and individual eGFR were interconverted using published anthropometric data of a national average man. RESULTS: Differences between results by the algorithms for eGFR were less than the uncertainty within the diagnostically important interval. Three of the four algorithms were non-continuous at extreme S-Creatinine concentrations. Normalised eGFR values, converted to individual eGFR resulted in an underestimation of 5-40% compared with that by Cockcroft-Gault. CONCLUSIONS: The use of algorithms will increase the uncertainty of results. The difference between different algorithms is small. A global staging recommendation is in jeopardy due to the large interindividual biological variation. Dosage of critical drugs, based on conversion of normalised eGFR, may lead to an underdosage compared with the dosage estimated by Cockroft-Gault.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Despite eGFR being used to adjust the dosage of potent drugs to individuals, the diagnostic uncertainty in estimating eGFR as measure of glomerular filtration rate is seldom if ever reported with the results.87”
From Uncertainty in Measurement and Total Error (2017) · cites this paper as [87]
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Kallner, A.
- Affiliations
- Karolinska University Hospital (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Kallner, Anders
- ORCID
- Kallner, Anders
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Pathology
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2014-05-16
- Volume
- 67
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 609-613
- ISSN
- 0021-9746 (ISSN-L)
- 1472-4146
- OpenAlex
- W2316391882
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 1.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Pathology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Chronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Medical Laboratory Technology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Antibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy
- Keywords
- estimated glomerular filtration rate, creatinine-based GFR estimation, Cockcroft-Gault formula, drug dosing, renal dysfunction, interindividual variability, underdosing, CKD staging
- MeSH terms
- Age Factors, Algorithms, Computer Simulation, Creatinine, Feasibility Studies, Female, Glomerular Filtration Rate, Humans, Kidney, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Biological, Sex Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Biomarkers, Uncertainty, White People, Body Size, Drug Dosage Calculations
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: Estimated GFR. Comparison of five algorithms: implications for drug dosing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202245
- The paper
- Kallner, A. (2014). Estimated GFR. Comparison of five algorithms: implications for drug dosing. Journal of Clinical Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202245