Clinical Chemistry
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Clinical Chemistry 52: 2188-2193, 2006. First published October 26, 2006; 10.1373/clinchem.2006.078733
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
clinchem.2006.078733v1
52/12/2188    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (9)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Levey, A. S.
Right arrow Articles by Hostetter, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Levey, A. S.
Right arrow Articles by Hostetter, T.
Related Collections
Right arrow General Clinical Chemistry
Right arrow Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine and Test Utilization
Right arrow Current Issues in Laboratory Medicine
(Clinical Chemistry. 2006;52:2188-2193.)
© 2006 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.


Point/Counterpoint

Automatic Reporting of Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate—Just What the Doctor Ordered

Andrew S. Levey1, Lesley A. Stevens1,a and Thomas Hostetter2

1 Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Boston, MA.
2 Renal Division, Department of Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY.

aAddress correspondence to this author at: Lesley A Stevens, Division of Nephrology, Tufts-New England Medical Center, 750 Washington St, Box 391, Boston, MA 02111. Fax 617-636-5740; e-mail Lstevens1@Tufts-nemc.org.

The first 300 words of the full text of this article appear below.


   Introduction
 
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a recently recognized public health problem. CKD is defined as the presence of markers of kidney damage or of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) <60 mL · min–1 · (1.73 m–2) [<1 mLs–1 · (1.73 m–2)–1] for three months or more (1)(2)(3). According to these definitions, the prevalence of CKD in noninstitutionalized US adults is estimated as ~11%, or ~20 million people (4). CKD is associated with poor outcomes and high cost, disproportionately affecting the elderly and racial and ethnic minorities. Thus, new public health campaigns focus on early detection of CKD, especially in patients at increased risk, including those with hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or a family history of CKD (5).

To facilitate early detection of CKD, many national and international organizations now recommend automatic reporting of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) whenever serum creatinine is measured (1)(2)(3)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12). Approximately 20% of participants in the College of American Pathologists’ chemistry survey were reporting eGFR calculations in 2005 (13). In this issue of Clinical Chemistry, Dr. Rainey offers a dissenting view, likening automatic eGFR reporting to "jumping the gun". A careful examination of the arguments reveals, in our view, that reporting eGFR whenever a serum creatinine is requested is "just what the doctor ordered".


   the only reason to measure serum creatinine is to assess gfr
 
Dr. Rainey asserts that "Most creatinine measurements are not made to assess renal function in persons who have CKD or are at high risk for CKD. The great majority of creatinine measurements are ordered as part of a Basic Metabolic Panel".

The serum creatinine level holds no clinically useful meaning other than to serve as . . . [Full Text of this Article]


   gfr estimating equations provide more accurate estimates of gfr than does serum creatinine alone
 

   limitations of gfr estimates primarily reflect limitations of serum creatinine as an endogenous filtration marker
 
Variation in creatinine assays.
Determinants of serum creatinine other than GFR.
Generalizing an estimating equation developed in a population with CKD to populations without CKD.
Rapidly changing kidney function.

   in some circumstances, creatinine clearance measurements can be used as confirmatory tests
 

   early detection and appropriate evaluation and management of ckd can improve outcomes
 

   reporting Egfr simplifies the evaluation and management of ckd
 

   the benefit of reporting Egfr likely outweighs the harm
 

   education vs legislation
 



The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
CJASNHome page
M. L. Melamed, C. Bauer, and T. H. Hostetter
eGFR: Is It Ready for Early Identification of CKD?
Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., September 1, 2008; 3(5): 1569 - 1572.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
B. R. Herts, E. Schneider, E. D. Poggio, N. A. Obuchowski, and M. E. Baker
Identifying Outpatients with Renal Insufficiency before Contrast-enhanced CT by Using Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rates versus Serum Creatinine Levels
Radiology, July 1, 2008; 248(1): 106 - 113.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.