|
|
||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CONTROVERSIES IN NEPHROLOGY |
Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York
1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: thostett{at}aecom.yu.edu.
| Abstract |
|---|
Reporting estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) with serum creatinine simply provides the information for which the serum creatinine was ordered in the first place. Mass or universal screening is not the purpose of eGFR reporting. Furthermore, such mass screening does not seem justified. Rather, testing of high-risk groups with eGFR and urinary albumin is useful. Population estimates of the prevalence of chronic kidney disease in the United States that use the Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative staging system lead to disturbingly high estimates. Many of these people are elderly with marginally depressed GFRs and for whom there are no known therapeutic implications. However, an even more disturbing fraction of people with serious and progressive renal disease are not diagnosed, counseled, or treated. Reporting of eGFR is only one tool in attempting to rectify this latter problem. Nephrologists need to educate patients and their primary care colleagues in the use of this tool.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
L. C. Plantinga, L. E. Boulware, L. A. Stevens, E. R. Miller III, and N. R. Powe Pitfalls in Diagnosing Chronic Kidney Disease From eGFR--Reply Arch Intern Med, June 22, 2009; 169(12): 1169 - 1169. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. K. Cheung and S. Bhandari Perspectives on eGFR reporting from the Interface between Primary and Secondary Care Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., February 1, 2009; 4(2): 258 - 260. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. Botev and J.-P. Mallie Reporting the eGFR and Its Implication for CKD Diagnosis Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., November 1, 2008; 3(6): 1606 - 1607. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |