ライフサイエンスコーパス: Cockcroft

1 Cockcroft-Gault estimated renal function improved over t

2 -0.76 +/- 16.5, CRMSE = 16.5, r2 = 0.69; (2) Cockcroft-Gault, delta GFR = 9.56 +/- 14.9, CRMSE = 17.7

3 as followed by the creatinine-based BIS1 and Cockcroft-Gault equations.

4 th modification of diet in renal disease and Cockcroft-Gault equations displayed the lowest performan

5 , Modification of Diet in Renal Disease, and Cockcroft-Gault equations, and we evaluated baseline fac

6 he relationship between hemoglobin level and Cockcroft-Gault creatinine clearance (CrCl) and to estim

7 vels (i.e., age, sex, creatinine levels, and Cockcroft-Gault estimated creatinine clearance, current

8 fication of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and Cockcroft-Gault equations.

9 osing indications was assessed when applying Cockcroft-Gault, MDRD, or CKD-EPI.

10 ed with that of established formulas such as Cockcroft-Gault, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease,

11 cific eGFR equations were compared with both Cockcroft-Gault creatinine clearance (CrCl) and measured

12 EPI(without race), and 90 mL/min (72-120) by Cockcroft-Gault.

13 te clearance, 8.2% by MDRD equation, 7.7% by Cockcroft-Gault equation, and 14.8% by creatinine cleara

14 Gault equation adjusted for BSA, followed by Cockcroft-Gault equation, and CKD-EPI equation, while th

15 lified MDRD equation), Cockcroft-Gault (CG), Cockcroft-Gault corrected for GFR (CG-GFR), and other eq

16 A methacholine challenge (Cockcroft method) was initiated 3 h before and 0.25 h af

17 Calculated creatinine clearance (Cockcroft and Gault formula) at 1 year was also better (

18 Estimated creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) from baseline out to 6 additional years

19 cretion than subjects in the original cohort Cockcroft Gault, which led to biased and highly variable

20 24-hour urinary creatinine clearance (CrCl), Cockcroft-Gault (CG), and previously reported creatinine

21 mated by four methods: 100/serum creatinine, Cockcroft-Gault equation, creatinine clearance from 24-h

22 diet in renal disease estimated GFR (eGFR), Cockcroft-Gault estimated creatinine clearance, and endo

23 e MDRD 1, MDRD 2 (simplified MDRD equation), Cockcroft-Gault (CG), Cockcroft-Gault corrected for GFR

24 ine (Scr) by using two prediction equations [Cockcroft-Gault and that from the Modification of Diet i

25 We evaluated the following: Cockcroft-Gault, four-variable Modified Diet in Renal Di

26 static glomerular filtration rate formulas (Cockcroft and Gault, modification of diet in renal disea

27 vir doses were modified for kidney function (Cockcroft-Gault creatinine clearance [CrCl]).

28 ) on midstream urine sample; and reduced GFR-Cockcroft-Gault estimated GFR (abnormal: <60 ml/min per

29 ia or macroalbuminuria) or renal impairment (Cockcroft-Gault estimated creatinine clearance <60 ml/mi

30 m; eGFR, 98+/-19 and 63+/-12 mL/min/1.73 m; Cockcroft-Gault estimated creatinine clearance, 125+/-33

31 ween-group changes in baseline-adjusted mean Cockcroft-Gault GFR at month 12 (primary efficacy end po

32 the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project, mean Cockcroft-Gault creatinine clearance was 55 +/- 24 ml/mi

33 eference values, whereas only 40% and 60% of Cockcroft-Gault- and MDRD-based GFRs, respectively, were

34 21.6%, 59.6%, and 18.8% of patients based on Cockcroft-Gault and CKD-EPI, respectively.

35 FR (OR [MDRD] 2.0 [95% CI 1.0 to 4.2] or OR [Cockcroft-Gault] 1.9 [95% CI 0.9 to 3.9]), and creatinin

36 54 with estimated glomerular filtration rate-Cockcroft-Gault).

37 as estimated using the recently recalculated Cockcroft-Gault (GFR-CGc) and the simplified Modificatio

38 The Cockcroft-Gault formula is recommended to determine a re

39 tion of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) equations as compared with measured

40 ations with standardized creatinine, and the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) formula as compared with (125)I-iot

41 nal Disease Study equation (GFRMDRD) and the Cockcroft-Gault (GFRCG) formula.

42 ase (MDRD) study formula for the GFR and the Cockcroft-Gault estimate of creatinine clearance, were e

43 l function over time estimated with both the Cockcroft-Gault and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology

44 s the first test for GFR evaluation, but the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) equation is still commonly used in

45 f kidney disease (62 [69%] studies), but the Cockcroft-Gault formula (22 [24%] studies) and Modificat

46 than serum creatinine, GFR (estimated by the Cockcroft-Gault [GFRCG] and Modification of Diet in Rena

47 ne clearance (eCl(Cr)) was calculated by the Cockcroft-Gault equation.

48 er 1.73 m(2) from baseline estimated [by the Cockcroft-Gault equation] glomerular filtration rate [eG

49 %, and creatinine clearance predicted by the Cockcroft-Gault formula overestimated GFR by 16%.

50 nine clearance of at least 50 mL/min (by the Cockcroft-Gault method).

51 the BSA-adjusted CKD-EPI and 25.51% for the Cockcroft-Gault formula.

52 creatinine clearance (CrCl) derived from the Cockcroft-Gault formula (normal, > or = 90 ml/min; mild,

53 l 6-variable equation and better than in the Cockcroft-Gault equation, even when the latter was corre

54 ce of 30-69 mL/min (calculated by use of the Cockcroft-Gault equation) or Cumulative Illness Rating S

55 calculated creatinine clearance based on the Cockcroft-Gault equation (147.9 +/- 50.2 vs 109.1 +/- 32

56 cted by measured creatinine clearance or the Cockcroft-Gault formula was 86.6% and 84.2%, respectivel

57 ment with MR imaging, which outperformed the Cockcroft-Gault and MDRD formulas, adds less than 10 min

58 timate creatinine clearance according to the Cockcroft-Gault and Jelliffe formulas were available fro

59 ing serum creatinine levels according to the Cockcroft-Gault and modification of diet in renal diseas

60 ne clearance (CrCl) were estimated using the Cockcroft-Gault (C-G) and Modification of Diet in Renal

61 the placebo group during follow-up using the Cockcroft-Gault (P < .001) and CKD-EPI (P = .007) equati

62 rd trends in longitudinal analysis using the Cockcroft-Gault and CKD-EPI equations.

63 rum ANRIL and creatinine clearance using the Cockcroft-Gault and Jelliffe formulas.

64 nine clearance was also calculated using the Cockcroft-Gault equation and estimated glomerular filtra

65 ned as creatinine clearance (CrCl) using the Cockcroft-Gault equation.

66 We estimated the GFR using the Cockcroft-Gault equation.

67 y equation, and CRCL was estimated using the Cockcroft-Gault equation.

68 The CrCl was estimated using the Cockcroft-Gault equation.

69 ory of creatinine clearance (CrCl) using the Cockcroft-Gault formula (CrCl < 45, 45 to 59, and > or =

70 posttransplant and also calculated using the Cockcroft-Gault method at the transplant evaluation; at

71 GFR calculation algorithms: the best was the Cockcroft-Gault equation adjusted for BSA, followed by C

72 underestimated iothalamate GFR, whereas the Cockcroft Gault formula underestimated it when it was <1

73 d additional exploratory cut points with the Cockcroft-Gault formula.

74 rular filtration rate was estimated with the Cockcroft-Gault, Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Col

75 enal function of trial participants with the Cockcroft-Gault, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (

76 Estimated GFR (eGFR) was calculated with the Cockcroft-Gault, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease S

77 of medication dosing discordance relative to Cockcroft-Gault CrCl or measured GFR for 8 commonly pres

78 (TICS-m) and estimated kidney function using Cockcroft-Gault creatinine clearance (CCl), Modification

79 CKD-EPI, but at a similar rate as when using Cockcroft-Gault.

80 than the calculated creatinine clearance via Cockcroft-Gault and estimated glomerular filtration rate

81 at 1 year were compared in patients in whom Cockcroft-Gault and CKD-EPI provided concordant or disco

82 illation with chronic kidney disease in whom Cockcroft-Gault suggested a dose reduction of dabigatran

83 When compared with Cockcroft-Gault CrCl, the lowest proportion of discordan

84 mated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) with Cockcroft-Gault (C-G) and Modification of Diet in Renal