Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorYildiz, G.
dc.contributor.authorMagden, K.
dc.contributor.authorAbdulkerim, Y.
dc.contributor.authorOzcicek, F.
dc.contributor.authorHur, E.
dc.contributor.authorCandan, F.
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-27T12:10:23Z
dc.date.accessioned2019-07-28T09:58:24Z
dc.date.available2019-07-27T12:10:23Z
dc.date.available2019-07-28T09:58:24Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.issn0026-4806
dc.identifier.issn1827-1669
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12418/8491
dc.descriptionWOS: 000331341600004en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed ID: 24316914en_US
dc.description.abstractAim. In this study, we compared estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) calculated with the formulas of Cockcroft-Gault (C&G), Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD), Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) and Mayo Clinic Quadratic (Mayo Q) and, GFR (mGFR) that was scintigraphically measured with creatinine clearance (CrCl) and technetium-99m diethylene triamine penta-acetic acid (99mTc-DTPA). Objective of this study was to define the correlations between the formulas, provide a reliable method for measurement and estimation of GFR in daily clinical practice and demonstrate the potential errors. Methods. C&G, CKD-EPI, Mayo Q and MDRD eGFR of 84(37 males, 47 females) patients diagnosed with chronic kidney disease were calculated. Values of 99mTc-DTPA based on mGFR were compared with eGFR values of the formulas. Results. Significant correlations were found with the values of 99mTc-DTPA mGFR, CrCl, MDRD, CKD-EPI, Mayo Q and C&G eGFR. The highest correlation was found between LBM(lean body mass) corrected C&G, MDRD-6, Mayo Q and CKD-EPI eGFR. The best estimate was made with MDRD-6 in the cases with 99mTc-DTPA mGFR<30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and with MDRD-4 in the cases with 99mTc-DTPA mGFR >= 30 mL/min/1.73 m(2), while the worst estimate was made with uncorrected C&G formula in both groups. Conclusion. All eGFR formulas can be used in daily clinical practice. However, using MDRD-6 in the cases with GFR<30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and MDRD-4 in the cases with GFR >= 30 mL/min/1.73m(2) as well as using LBM for C&G eGFR or correction according to LBM when AW (actual weight) is used, might provide a more accurate estimation.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherEDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICAen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectRenal insufficiency, chronicen_US
dc.subjectDiagnosisen_US
dc.subjectGlomerular filtration rateen_US
dc.titleGlomerular filtration rate: which method should we measure in daily clinical practice?en_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalMINERVA MEDICAen_US
dc.contributor.department[Yildiz, G.] Ataturk State Hosp, Zonguldak, Turkey -- [Magden, K. -- Hur, E.] Bulen Ecevit Univ, Zonguldak, Turkey -- [Abdulkerim, Y.] Gaziosmanpasa Univ, Sch Med, Tokat, Turkey -- [Ozcicek, F.] Erzincan Univ, Erzincan, Turkey -- [Candan, F.] Cumhuriyet Univ, Sivas, Turkeyen_US
dc.identifier.volume104en_US
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.endpage623en_US
dc.identifier.startpage613en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record