Cited by 7Chronic Kidney Disease and DiabetesClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlAntibiotics Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Estimated GFR. Comparison of five algorithms: implications for drug dosing

Kallner, Anders·2014·Journal of Clinical Pathology

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

Crossref · 10.1136/jclinpath-2014-202245

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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
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