The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Performance of the Cockcroft-Gault, MDRD, and New CKD-EPI Formulas in Relation to GFR, Age, and Body Size
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We compared the estimations of Cockcroft-Gault, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD), and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equations to a gold standard GFR measurement using (125)I-iothalamate, within strata of GFR, gender, age, body weight, and body mass index (BMI). DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: For people who previously underwent a GFR measurement, bias, precision, and accuracies between measured and estimated kidney functions were calculated within strata of the variables. The relation between the absolute bias and the variables was tested with linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Overall (n = 271, 44% male, mean measured GFR 72.6 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) [SD 30.4 ml/min per 1.73 m(2)]), mean bias was smallest for MDRD (P < 0.01). CKD-EPI had highest accuracy (P < 0.01 compared with Cockcroft-Gault), which did not differ from MDRD (P = 0.14). The absolute bias of all formulas was related to age. For MDRD and CKD-EPI, absolute bias was also related to the GFR; for Cockcroft-Gault, it was related to body weight and BMI as well. In all extreme subgroups, MDRD and CKD-EPI provided highest accuracies. CONCLUSIONS: The absolute bias of all formulas is influenced by age; CKD-EPI and MDRD are also influenced by GFR. Cockcroft-Gault is additionally influenced by body weight and BMI. In general, CKD-EPI gives the best estimation of GFR, although its accuracy is close to that of the MDRD.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
A New Equation to Estimate Glomerular Filtration Rate
Levey, A. S., Stevens, L. A., Schmid, C. H., Zhang, Y. (., Castro, A. F., Feldman, H. I., Kusek, J. W., Eggers, P., Van Lente, F., Greene, T., et al. (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-150-9-200905050-00006 · Cited by 25,603
Cited by
Meta-analysis on risk of bleeding with apixaban in patients with renal impairment
Pathak, R., Pandit, A., Karmacharya, P., Aryal, M. R., Ghimire, S., Poudel, D. R., & Shamoun, F. E. (2015) · The American Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.10.042 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Michels, W. M., Grootendorst, D. C., Verduijn, M., Elliott, E. G., Dekker, F. W., & Krediet, R. T.
- Venue
- Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
- Published
- 2010-06
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1003-1009
- ISSN
- 1555-9041 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2015754438
- Cited by
- 664
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 18.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Performance of the Cockcroft-Gault, MDRD, and New CKD-EPI Formulas in Relation to GFR, Age, and Body Size. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2215/cjn.06870909
- The paper
- Michels, W. M., Grootendorst, D. C., Verduijn, M., Elliott, E. G., Dekker, F. W., & Krediet, R. T. (2010). Performance of the Cockcroft-Gault, MDRD, and New CKD-EPI Formulas in Relation to GFR, Age, and Body Size. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. https://doi.org/10.2215/cjn.06870909
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.