Systematic review and metaanalysis comparing the bias and accuracy of the modification of diet in renal disease and chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration equations in community-based populations
McFadden EC., Hirst JA., Verbakel JY., McLellan JH., Hobbs FDR., Stevens RJ., O Callaghan CA., Lasserson DS.
© 2017 American Association for Clinical Chemistry. BACKGROUND: The majority of patients with chronic kidney disease are diagnosed and monitored in primary care. Glomerular filtration rate (GFR) is a key marker of renal function, but direct measurement is invasive; in routine practice, equations are used for estimated GFR (eGFR) from serum creatinine. We systematically assessed bias and accuracy of commonly used eGFR equations in populations relevant to primary care. CONTENT: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies comparing measured GFR (mGFR) with eGFR in adult populations comparable to primary care and reporting both the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equations based on standardized creatinine measurements. We pooled data on mean bias (difference between eGFR and mGFR) and on mean accuracy (proportion of eGFR within 30% of mGFR) using a random-effects inverse-variance weighted metaanalysis. We included 48 studies of 26 875 patients that reported data on bias and/or accuracy. Metaanalysis of within-study comparisons in which both formulae were tested on the same patient cohorts using isotope dilution-mass spectrometry-traceable creatinine showed a lower mean bias in eGFR using CKD-EPI of 2.2 mL/min/1.73 m 2 (95% CI, 1.1-3.2; 30 studies; I 2 74.4%) and a higher mean accuracy of CKD-EPI of 2.7% (1.6 -3.8; 47 studies; I 2 55.5%). Metaregression showed that in both equations bias and accuracy favored the CKD-EPI equation at higher mGFR values. SUMMARY: Both equations underestimated mGFR, but CKD-EPI gave more accurate estimates of GFR.