English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  Accurate measurement of renal function is important: however, radiolabelled gold standard measurement of GFR is highly expensive and can only be used on a very limited scale. We aim to compare the performance of Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and Chronic Kidney Disease-Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equations in the multi-ethnic population attending University Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC).    Methods  This is a cross-sectional study recruiting patients, who attend UMMC Nephrology clinics on voluntary basis. 51-Chromium EDTA ( 51 Cr-EDTA) plasma level was used to measure the reference GFR. The serum creatinine was determined by IDMS reference modified Jaffe kinetic assay (Cr Jaffe ). The predictive capabilities of MDRD and CKD-EPI based equations were calculated. Data was analysed using SPSS version 20 and correlation, bias, precision and accuracy were determined.    Results  A total of 113 subjects with mean age of 58.12 ± 14.76 years and BMI of 25.99 ± 4.29 kg/m 2  were recruited. The mean reference GFR was 66.98 ± 40.65 ml/min/1.73m 2 , while the estimated GFR based on MDRD and CKD-EPI formula were 62.17 ± 40.40, and 60.44 ± 34.59, respectively. Both MDRD and CKD-EPI were well-correlated with reference GFR (0.806 and 0.867 respectively) and statistically significant with  p  < 0.001. In the overall cohort, although MDRD had smaller bias than CKD-EPI (4.81 vs. 6.54), CKD-EPI was more precise (25.22 vs. 20.29) with higher accuracy within 30% of measured GFR (79.65 vs. 86.73%).    Conclusion  The CKD-EPI equation appeared to be more precise and accurate than the MDRD equation in estimating GFR in our cohort of multi-ethnic populations in Malaysia.

MDRD vs. CKD-EPI in comparison to 51Chromium EDTA: a cross sectional study of Malaysian CKD cohort