A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Accuracy to estimate rates of decline in glomerular filtration rate in renal transplant patients. | LitMetric

Accuracy to estimate rates of decline in glomerular filtration rate in renal transplant patients.

Transplantation

Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, University of Saskatchewan, 103 Hospital Drive, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.

Published: August 2007

Background: We examined the use of the Cockroft Gault (C-G) test, Modified Diet in Renal Disease 2 (MDRD2) test, and inverse serum creatinine (Delta1/Scr) to estimate rates of decline in renal transplant function using isotope glomerular filtration rate (GFR) as a reference test.

Methods: Percent changes in estimated GFR (DeltaeGFR) were compared to simultaneous changes in isotope GFR (DeltaiGFR) in 72 patients.

Results: The number of iGFR was 508 with a mean of 7.15+/-3.15 scans per patient. There was a decline in iGFR of 16.14+/-21.37 ml/min over the study duration of 88.9+/-57.6 months. DeltaeGFR and Delta1/Scr correlated significantly with DeltaiGFR. Accuracy to predict DeltaiGFR from the eGFRs was limited to <65% concordance within 30% range from changes in iGFR. Slope analyses showed a significantly lower percent annual loss in mean iGFR of 6.03% than that of the C-G of 8.62% and MDRD2 of 8.96% (P<0.001). The within patient variability measured from the standard deviation (ml/min) of root mean square of 4.69 for iGFR was significantly higher than that for C-G and MDRD2 of 2.46 and 2.94, respectively. iGFR and eGFR at first observation correlated significantly (P<0.001) with last observation.

Conclusions: iGFR is significantly more variable within patient than the other predictors, and the two estimators predict the iGFR with a high sensitivity but low specificity. This is a clinically reasonable combination. Predicted percent of annual loss in iGFR appears to be smaller than that using the two estimators.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.tp.0000277628.82904.bbDOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

estimate rates
8
rates decline
8
glomerular filtration
8
filtration rate
8
renal transplant
8
accuracy estimate
4
decline glomerular
4
rate renal
4
transplant patients
4
patients background
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!