The diagnostic value of serum creatinine and cystatin c in evaluating glomerular filtration rate in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis
机构:[1]Department of Laboratory Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China 中山大学附属第一医院[2]Department of Laboratory Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China 大德路总院检验科大德路总院检验科广东省中医院[3]Department of Nephrology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China 中山大学附属第三医院[4]Medical genetic center, Guangdong Women And Children Hospital, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China [5]Division of Nephrology, The 3rd Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Yuedong Hospital, Meizhou, China中山大学附属第三医院
Background: Serum biomarkers, such as serum creatinine (SCr) and serum cystatin C (SCysC), have been widely used to evaluate renal function in patients who have chronic kidney disease (CKD). Objective: This article aims to assess the value of determining SCr and SCysC levels in patients that have long-term kidney disease. Approaches: MEDLINE, EmBase, the Cochrane Library and other databases were searched using both MeSH terms and text words to collect research that assessed the diagnostic value of using SCr and SCysC to evaluate Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR) in patients with CKD. Data were converted into fourfold tables. Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves and meta-analyses were accomplished via Meta-Disc version 1.4. Results: In total, 21 relevant articles involving 3112 study subjects were included in our review. Results showed that the collective sensitivity for SCr and SCysC was 0.77(95% CI: 0.69-0.84) and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82-0.91), respectively. The pooled specificity for SCr and SCysC was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.86-0.94) and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82-0.91), respectively. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that when GFR cutoff values are set to 60 (ml/min/1.73 m(2)), the pooled sensitivity is 0.94 (95% CI: 0.90-0.96) for SCysC and 0.75 (95% CI: 0.68-0.82) for SCr. Conclusions: The diagnostical accuracy for impaired kidney function favors SCysC. Confidence intervals for the pooled sensitivity and specificity for SCr and SCysC overlap. However, SCysC is more sensitive for estimating GFR than SCr when GFR cut-off values are set to 60 (ml/min/1.73 m(2)).
基金:
National Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China [81572088, 81303287, 81601861, 81370866, 81070612]; China Postdoctoral Science FoundationChina Postdoctoral Science Foundation [201104335]; Guangdong Science and Technology Plan [2011B031800084, 2013B021800190, 2014A020212681, 2015A030313340]; Guangdong Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine Science and Technology research subject Foundation [2014KT1593]; Fundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesFundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [11ykpy38]; National Project of Scientific and Technical Supporting Programs - Ministry of Science and Technology of China [2011BAI10B00]; "Twelfth five-year" national science and technology support project Foundation of China [2013KT1462]
第一作者机构:[1]Department of Laboratory Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
共同第一作者:
推荐引用方式(GB/T 7714):
Xilian Qiu,Chunyong Liu,Yuqiu Ye,et al.The diagnostic value of serum creatinine and cystatin c in evaluating glomerular filtration rate in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis[J].ONCOTARGET.2017,8(42):72985-72999.doi:10.18632/oncotarget.20271.
APA:
Xilian Qiu,Chunyong Liu,Yuqiu Ye,Huiqun Li,Yanbing Chen...&Xun Liu.(2017).The diagnostic value of serum creatinine and cystatin c in evaluating glomerular filtration rate in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.ONCOTARGET,8,(42)
MLA:
Xilian Qiu,et al."The diagnostic value of serum creatinine and cystatin c in evaluating glomerular filtration rate in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis".ONCOTARGET 8..42(2017):72985-72999