Advanced

Correct evaluation of renal glomerular filtration rate requires clearance assays.

Hjorth, Lars LU ; Wiebe, Thomas LU and Karpman, Diana LU (2002) In Pediatric Nephrology 17(10). p.847-851
Abstract
Iohexol clearance is an accepted, but time-consuming assay for the measurement of glomerular filtration rate (GFR). We investigated if simpler methods could predict GFR. Sixty-nine children with hematological-oncological disorders participated. A linear relationship was established by regression analysis between iohexol clearance ( n=734) and 1/s-creatinine ( r=0.45, n=727), s-cystatin C ( r=0.41, n=518), and the Schwartz ( r=0.45, n=723), Counahan-Barratt ( r=0.48, n=723), and modified Counahan-Barratt formulae ( r=0.48, n=723). These correlations improved when one GFR measurement per individual was compared with each of the five parameters. We further investigated if iohexol clearance could accurately be replaced. The degree of variation... (More)
Iohexol clearance is an accepted, but time-consuming assay for the measurement of glomerular filtration rate (GFR). We investigated if simpler methods could predict GFR. Sixty-nine children with hematological-oncological disorders participated. A linear relationship was established by regression analysis between iohexol clearance ( n=734) and 1/s-creatinine ( r=0.45, n=727), s-cystatin C ( r=0.41, n=518), and the Schwartz ( r=0.45, n=723), Counahan-Barratt ( r=0.48, n=723), and modified Counahan-Barratt formulae ( r=0.48, n=723). These correlations improved when one GFR measurement per individual was compared with each of the five parameters. We further investigated if iohexol clearance could accurately be replaced. The degree of variation in predicting GFR was estimated by the standard deviation of the residuals (S(res)). For 1/s-creatinine and s-cystatin C, S(res) was 39 and 38 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). For the formulae of Schwartz, Counahan-Barratt, and modified Counahan-Barratt, the S(res) was 43, 40, and 40 ml/min per 1.73 m(2), respectively. The wide variations of the S(res) were not reduced when one GFR measurement per child was compared with the five parameters. Due to the large deviation in predicting GFR, we conclude that the five alternative methods studied cannot replace iohexol clearance for measurement of GFR. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Pediatric Nephrology
volume
17
issue
10
pages
847 - 851
publisher
Springer
external identifiers
  • wos:000179164100013
  • pmid:12376815
  • scopus:0036957098
ISSN
1432-198X
DOI
10.1007/s00467-002-0913-3
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
86935bb6-743e-4e7f-97f2-964164a68664 (old id 110683)
alternative location
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12376815&dopt=Abstract
date added to LUP
2007-07-19 12:05:24
date last changed
2017-01-01 07:19:20
@article{86935bb6-743e-4e7f-97f2-964164a68664,
  abstract     = {Iohexol clearance is an accepted, but time-consuming assay for the measurement of glomerular filtration rate (GFR). We investigated if simpler methods could predict GFR. Sixty-nine children with hematological-oncological disorders participated. A linear relationship was established by regression analysis between iohexol clearance ( n=734) and 1/s-creatinine ( r=0.45, n=727), s-cystatin C ( r=0.41, n=518), and the Schwartz ( r=0.45, n=723), Counahan-Barratt ( r=0.48, n=723), and modified Counahan-Barratt formulae ( r=0.48, n=723). These correlations improved when one GFR measurement per individual was compared with each of the five parameters. We further investigated if iohexol clearance could accurately be replaced. The degree of variation in predicting GFR was estimated by the standard deviation of the residuals (S(res)). For 1/s-creatinine and s-cystatin C, S(res) was 39 and 38 ml/min per 1.73 m(2). For the formulae of Schwartz, Counahan-Barratt, and modified Counahan-Barratt, the S(res) was 43, 40, and 40 ml/min per 1.73 m(2), respectively. The wide variations of the S(res) were not reduced when one GFR measurement per child was compared with the five parameters. Due to the large deviation in predicting GFR, we conclude that the five alternative methods studied cannot replace iohexol clearance for measurement of GFR.},
  author       = {Hjorth, Lars and Wiebe, Thomas and Karpman, Diana},
  issn         = {1432-198X},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {10},
  pages        = {847--851},
  publisher    = {Springer},
  series       = {Pediatric Nephrology},
  title        = {Correct evaluation of renal glomerular filtration rate requires clearance assays.},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00467-002-0913-3},
  volume       = {17},
  year         = {2002},
}