16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Performance of the CKD-EPI and MDRD equations for estimating glomerular filtration rate: a systematic review of Latin American studies

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          ABSTRACT

          BACKGROUND:

          The most-used equations for estimating the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) are the CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equations. However, it is unclear which of these shows better performance in Latin America.

          OBJECTIVE:

          To assess the performance of two equations for estimated GFR (eGFR) in Latin American countries.

          DESIGN AND SETTING:

          Systematic review and meta-analysis in Latin American countries.

          METHODS:

          We searched in three databases to identify studies that reported eGFR using both equations and compared them with measured GFR (mGFR) using exogenous filtration markers, among adults in Latin American countries. We performed meta-analyses on P30, bias (using mean difference [MD] and 95% confidence intervals [95% CI]), sensitivity and specificity; and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE methodology.

          RESULTS:

          We included 12 papers, and meta-analyzed six (five from Brazil and one from Mexico). Meta-analyses that compared CKD-EPI using creatinine measured with calibration traceable to isotope dilution mass spectrometry (CKD-EPI-Cr IDMS) and using MDRD-4 IDMS did not show differences in bias (MD: 0.55 ml/min/1.73m2; 95% CI: -3.34 to 4.43), P30 (MD: 4%; 95% CI: -2% to 11%), sensitivity (76% and 75%) and specificity (91% and 89%), with very low certainty of evidence for bias and P30, and low certainty of evidence for sensitivity and specificity.

          CONCLUSION:

          We found that the performances of CKD-EPI-Cr IDMS and MDRD-4 IDMS did not differ significantly. However, since most of the meta-analyzed studies were from Brazil, the results cannot be extrapolated to other Latin American countries.

          REGISTRATION:

          PROSPERO (CRD42019123434) - https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019123434.

          Related collections

          Most cited references60

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A new equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate.

          Equations to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR) are routinely used to assess kidney function. Current equations have limited precision and systematically underestimate measured GFR at higher values. To develop a new estimating equation for GFR: the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation. Cross-sectional analysis with separate pooled data sets for equation development and validation and a representative sample of the U.S. population for prevalence estimates. Research studies and clinical populations ("studies") with measured GFR and NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey), 1999 to 2006. 8254 participants in 10 studies (equation development data set) and 3896 participants in 16 studies (validation data set). Prevalence estimates were based on 16,032 participants in NHANES. GFR, measured as the clearance of exogenous filtration markers (iothalamate in the development data set; iothalamate and other markers in the validation data set), and linear regression to estimate the logarithm of measured GFR from standardized creatinine levels, sex, race, and age. In the validation data set, the CKD-EPI equation performed better than the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation, especially at higher GFR (P < 0.001 for all subsequent comparisons), with less bias (median difference between measured and estimated GFR, 2.5 vs. 5.5 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)), improved precision (interquartile range [IQR] of the differences, 16.6 vs. 18.3 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)), and greater accuracy (percentage of estimated GFR within 30% of measured GFR, 84.1% vs. 80.6%). In NHANES, the median estimated GFR was 94.5 mL/min per 1.73 m(2) (IQR, 79.7 to 108.1) vs. 85.0 (IQR, 72.9 to 98.5) mL/min per 1.73 m(2), and the prevalence of chronic kidney disease was 11.5% (95% CI, 10.6% to 12.4%) versus 13.1% (CI, 12.1% to 14.0%). The sample contained a limited number of elderly people and racial and ethnic minorities with measured GFR. The CKD-EPI creatinine equation is more accurate than the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation and could replace it for routine clinical use. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

            Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies.

              In 2003, the QUADAS tool for systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies was developed. Experience, anecdotal reports, and feedback suggested areas for improvement; therefore, QUADAS-2 was developed. This tool comprises 4 domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain is assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first 3 domains are also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Signalling questions are included to help judge risk of bias. The QUADAS-2 tool is applied in 4 phases: summarize the review question, tailor the tool and produce review-specific guidance, construct a flow diagram for the primary study, and judge bias and applicability. This tool will allow for more transparent rating of bias and applicability of primary diagnostic accuracy studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: conceptualization (equal), data curation (equal), formal analysis (equal), methodology (equal), writing-original draft (equal) and writing-review and editing (equal);
                Role: conceptualization (equal), methodology (equal), writing-original draft (equal) and writing-review and editing (equal);
                Role: conceptualization (equal), methodology (equal), writing-original draft (equal) and writing-review and editing (equal);
                Role: data curation (equal), methodology (equal), writingoriginal draft (equal) and writing-review and editing (equal);
                Role: data curation (equal), methodology (equal), writing-original draft (equal) and writing-review and editing (equal);
                Role: investigation (equal), writing-original draft (equal) and writing-review and editing (equal);
                Role: conceptualization (equal), formal analysis (equal), methodology (equal), supervision (equal), writing-original draft (equal) and writing-review and editing (equal).
                Journal
                Sao Paulo Med J
                Sao Paulo Med J
                Sao Paulo Med J
                São Paulo Medical Journal
                Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM
                1516-3180
                1806-9460
                09 August 2021
                2021
                : 139
                : 5
                : 452-463
                Affiliations
                [I ] originalUndergraduate Student, Facultad de Medicina and Asociación para el Desarrollo de la Investigación Estudiantil en Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Peru.
                [II ] originalMD. Methodologist, EsSalud, Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación, Lima, Peru.
                [III ] originalMD, MSc. Professor, Escuela de Medicina, Universidad Científica del Sur, Lima, Peru.
                [IV ] originalMidwife. Methodologist, EsSalud, Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación, Lima, Peru.
                [V ] originalMD, MSc. Methodologist, EsSalud, Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación, Lima, Peru; and Researcher, Unidad de Investigación para la Generación y Síntesis de Evidencias en Salud, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Lima, Peru.
                [VI ] originalMD, MHEd. Researcher, Universidad Privada San Juan Bautista, Lima, Peru; and Assistant Manager, EsSalud, Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación, Lima, Peru.
                [VII ] originalMD, MSc. Methodologist, EsSalud, Instituto de Evaluación de Tecnologías en Salud e Investigación, Lima, Peru; and Researcher, Unidad de Investigación para la Generación y Síntesis de Evidencias en Salud, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Lima, Peru.
                Author notes
                Address for correspondence: Alvaro Taype-Rondan, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Av. la Fontana 550, La Molina, Lima, Peru, Tel. (+51) (01) 3171000 E-mail: alvaro.taype.r@ 123456gmail.com

                Authors’ contributions: All authors actively contributed to discussion of the results from the study, and reviewed and approved the final version to be released

                Conflicts of interest: None

                Article
                10.1590/1516-3180.2020.0707.R1.150321
                9632528
                34378734
                4bd0421a-bb25-4a93-82cb-bf924fe40659
                © 2022 by Associação Paulista de Medicina

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons license.

                History
                : 21 November 2020
                : 19 February 2021
                : 15 March 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 4, Tables: 3, Equations: 0, References: 50, Pages: 12
                Categories
                Original Article

                renal insufficiency, chronic,glomerular filtration rate,latin america,systematic review [publication type],meta-analysis [publication type],chronic renal failure,chronic kidney disease,diagnoses,screening

                Comments

                Comment on this article