This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related letter  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Renal Diseases  • Renal Diseases, Other  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Alert me on articles by topic

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In Reply: We would like to respond to each of the 3 arguments listed by Dr Delanaye and colleagues for why the MDRD Study formula may have led to an underestimation of GFR in the NHANES studies. First, the MDRD Study formula was developed from participants with decreased GFR. In some studies of kidney donors, the MDRD Study formula indeed underestimated GFR, but the magnitude has been variable and reduced after calibration of the serum creatinine assay.¹ In one study,² the MDRD Study formula estimates showed little bias. In a pooling project comparing more than 5504 GFR measurements to estimated GFR, the MDRD Study equation underestimated measured GFR by higher amounts at higher GFR. The bias at levels of estimated GFR below 60 mL/min/1.73 m² was 3.0%.¹ To the extent that GFR is not measured in most clinical settings, the empirical properties of GFR estimates from the MDRD Study equation . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Josef Coresh, MD, PhD
coresh@jhu.edu
Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology, and Clinical Research
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions
Baltimore, Maryland

Lesley A. Stevens, MD, MS; Andrew S. Levey, MD
Division of Nephrology
Tufts-New England Medical Center
Boston, Massachusetts

RELATED LETTER

Determining Prevalence of Chronic Kidney Disease Using Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate
Pierre Delanaye, Etienne Cavalier, and Jean Marie Krzesinski
JAMA. 2008;299(6):631.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT