【24h】

Measuring GFR: A systematic review

机译:测量GFR:系统评价

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background No comprehensive systematic review of the accuracy of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) measurement methods using renal inulin clearance as reference has been published. Study Design Systematic review with meta-analysis of cross-sectional diagnostic studies. Setting & Population Published original studies and systematic reviews in any population. Selection Criteria for Studies Index and reference measurements conducted within 48 hours; at least 15 participants studied; GFR markers measured in plasma or urine; plasma clearance calculation algorithm verified in another study; tubular secretion of creatinine had not been blocked by medicines. Index Tests Endogenous creatinine clearance; renal or plasma clearance of chromium 51-labeled ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (51Cr-EDTA), diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA), iohexol, and iothalamate; and plasma clearance of inulin. Reference Test Renal inulin clearance measured under continuous inulin infusion and urine collection. Results Mean bias 10%, median bias 5%, the proportion of errors in the index measurements that did not exceed 30% (P30) ≥ 80%, and P10 ≥ 50% were set as requirements for sufficient accuracy. Based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach, the quality of evidence across studies was rated for each index method. Renal clearance of iothalamate measured GFR with sufficient accuracy (strong evidence). Renal and plasma clearance of 51Cr-EDTA and plasma clearance of iohexol were sufficiently accurate to measure GFR (moderately strong evidence). Renal clearance of DTPA, renal clearance of iohexol, and plasma clearance of inulin had sufficient accuracy (limited evidence). Endogenous creatinine clearance was an inaccurate method (strong evidence), as was plasma clearance of DTPA (limited evidence). The evidence to determine the accuracy of plasma iothalamate clearance was insufficient. With the exception of plasma clearance of inulin, only renal clearance methods had P30 90%. Limitations The included studies were few and most were old and small, which may limit generalizability. Requirements for sufficient accuracy may depend on clinical setting. Conclusions At least moderately strong evidence suggests that renal clearance of 51Cr-EDTA or iothalamate and plasma clearance of 51Cr-EDTA or iohexol are sufficiently accurate methods to measure GFR.
机译:背景尚无关于使用肾胰岛素清除率作为参考的肾小球滤过率(GFR)测量方法准确性的全面系统综述。研究设计系统评价,结合横断面诊断研究的荟萃分析。设置和人口在任何人口中发表的原始研究和系统评价。 48小时内进行的研究索引选择标准和参考测量;至少研究了15名参与者;在血浆或尿液中测量的GFR标记;在另一项研究中验证了血浆清除率计算算法;肌酐的肾小管分泌尚未被药物阻断。指数测试内源性肌酐清除率;铬51标记的乙二胺四乙酸(51Cr-EDTA),二亚乙基三胺五乙酸(DTPA),碘海醇和碘草酸酯的肾脏或血浆清除率;和菊粉的血浆清除率。参考测试在连续输注菊粉和收集尿液的情况下测量肾菊粉清除率。结果将平均偏差<10%,中位偏差<5%,指标测量中的误差比例不超过30%(P30)≥80%和P10≥50%设置为足够准确性的要求。基于GRADE(建议书评估,发展和评估等级)方法,对每种指标方法对研究的证据质量进行了评级。肾上腺苷测定的GFR具有足够的准确性(有力的证据)。肾和血浆51Cr-EDTA的清除率和碘海醇的血浆清除率足以测量GFR(足够有力的证据)。 DTPA的肾清除率,碘海醇的肾清除率和菊粉的血浆清除率具有足够的准确性(证据有限)。内源性肌酐清除率是一种不准确的方法(有力的证据),而DTPA的血浆清除率也是(有限的证据)。确定血浆碘代磺酸盐清除准确性的证据不足。除菊粉的血浆清除率外,只有肾脏清除方法的P30> 90%。局限性纳入的研究很少,大多数研究又老又少,这可能会限制普遍性。对足够准确性的要求可能取决于临床环境。结论至少中度有力的证据表明51Cr-EDTA或碘酒酸盐的肾脏清除率和51Cr-EDTA或碘海醇的血浆清除率是测量GFR的足够准确的方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号