Simple jQuery Dropdowns
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/dspace/handle/123456789/2691
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorChagriya Kitiyakaraen_US
dc.contributor.authorSukit Yamwongen_US
dc.contributor.authorPrin Vathesatogkiten_US
dc.contributor.authorAnchalee Chittammaen_US
dc.contributor.authorSayan Cheepudomwiten_US
dc.contributor.authorSomlak Vanavananen_US
dc.contributor.authorBunlue Hengprasithen_US
dc.contributor.authorPiyamitr Sritaraen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol University. Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital. Department of Medicineen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-08-07T04:53:48Z-
dc.date.available2017-08-07T04:53:48Z-
dc.date.created2017-08-07-
dc.date.issued2012-
dc.identifier.citationBMC Nephrology. Vol. 13, (2012), 1en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/dspace/handle/123456789/2691-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Recently, the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) group recommended that patients with CKD should be assigned to stages and composite relative risk groups according to GFR (G) and proteinuria (A) criteria. Asians have among the highest rates of ESRD in the world, but establishing the prevalence and prognosis CKD is a problem for Asian populations since there is no consensus on the best GFR estimating (eGFR) equation. We studied the effects of the choice of new Asian and Caucasian eGFR equations on CKD prevalence, stage distribution, and risk categorization using the new KDIGO classification. Methods: The prevalence of CKD and composite relative risk groups defined by eGFR from with Chronic Kidney Disease-Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI); standard (S) or Chinese(C) MDRD; Japanese CKD-EPI (J-EPI), Thai GFR (T-GFR) equations were compared in a Thai cohort (n = 5526) Results: There was a 7 fold difference in CKD3-5 prevalence between J-EPI and the other Asian eGFR formulae. CKD3-5 prevalence with S-MDRD and CKD-EPI were 2 - 3 folds higher than T-GFR or C-MDRD. The concordance with CKD-EPI to diagnose CKD3-5 was over 90% for T-GFR or C-MDRD, but they only assigned the same CKD stage in 50% of the time. The choice of equation also caused large variations in each composite risk groups especially those with mildly increased risks. Different equations can lead to a reversal of male: female ratios. The variability of different equations is most apparent in older subjects. Stage G3aA1 increased with age and accounted for a large proportion of the differences in CKD3-5 between CKD-EPI, S-MDRD and C-MDRD. Conclusions: CKD prevalence, sex ratios, and KDIGO composite risk groupings varied widely depending on the equation used. More studies are needed to define the best equation for Asian populations.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.subjectOpen Access articleen_US
dc.subjectEGATen_US
dc.subjectglomerular filtration rateen_US
dc.subjectrenal failureen_US
dc.subjectepidemiologyen_US
dc.subjectclassificationen_US
dc.subjectkidneyen_US
dc.subjectThaien_US
dc.titleThe impact of different GFR estimating equations on the prevalence of CKD and risk groups in a Southeast Asian cohort using the new KDIGO guidelinesen_US
dc.typeResearch Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderBioMed Centralen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/1471-2369-13-1-
dc.identifier.urlhttp://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2369/13/1-
Appears in Collections:RA-Article

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
ra-ar-chagriya-2012.pdf907.8 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.