These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A new equation for estimating renal function using age, body weight and serum creatinine.
    Author: Virga G, Gaspari F, Thomaseth K, Cara M, Mastrosimone S, Rossi V.
    Journal: Nephron Clin Pract; 2007; 105(2):c43-53. PubMed ID: 17135767.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Many formulas have been developed to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR). The aim of our study was to propose a new, more reliable equation. METHODS: The study considered 530 subjects (training sample) with M/F 280/250, age 57.1 +/- 17.4, creatinine clearance (CrCl) 55.2 +/- 38.2 (range 2.1-144.0) for the development the new equation. A linear model was used to describe Cr production using serum Cr (sCr), age, and body weight (BW) as variables: (CrCl + b(4)) . sCr = b(1) - (b(2) . age) + (b(3) . BW) subsequently estimating parameter values by linear least squares, with CrCl as the dependent variable, and 1/sCr, age/sCr, BW/sCr as independent variables. CrCl = {[69.4 - (0.59 . age) + (0.79 . BW)]/sCr} - 3.0 (males) and {[57.3 - (0.37 . age) + (0.51 . BW)]/sCr} - 2.9 (females). A 229-patient renal failure validation sample with M/F 166/63, age 53.0 +/- 14.8, GFR 32.0 +/- 14.3 (range 4.3-69.8), assessed using iohexol Cl, was considered to compare the Cockcroft-Gault (C-G) and MDRD formulas with the new equation for estimating GFR. RESULTS: The mean % error in GFR estimated by the new equation (+2.3 +/- 28.3%) was better than with the C-G and MDRD formulas (+5.2 +/- 30.1% and -11.4 +/- 25.9%, respectively, p < 0.0005 and p < 0.0001), and so was the mean absolute % error, bordering on statistical significance (19.8 +/- 20.3 vs. 21.1 +/- 22.0 and 22.4 +/- 17.3, p = 0.08 and p < 0.005). The precision was also better (RMSE = 7.89 vs. 8.02 and 9.13). The Bland-Altman test showed no GFR over or underestimation trend (measured +/- predicted GFR/2 vs. % error, R2 = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The new equation appears to be at least as accurate as the C-G and MDRD formulas for estimating GFR.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]