ライフサイエンスコーパス: Gault

1 lculated creatinine clearance (Cockcroft and Gault formula) at 1 year was also better (MMF 74+/-32 mL

2 ular filtration rate formulas (Cockcroft and Gault, modification of diet in renal disease, and Chroni

3 an subjects in the original cohort Cockcroft Gault, which led to biased and highly variable estimates

4 mated iothalamate GFR, whereas the Cockcroft Gault formula underestimated it when it was <120 ml/min

5 Cockcroft-Gault estimated renal function improved over time, which

6 16.5, CRMSE = 16.5, r2 = 0.69; (2) Cockcroft-Gault, delta GFR = 9.56 +/- 14.9, CRMSE = 17.7, r2 = 0.6

7 nship between hemoglobin level and Cockcroft-Gault creatinine clearance (CrCl) and to estimate the li

8 ation of diet in renal disease and Cockcroft-Gault equations displayed the lowest performance.

9 tion of Diet in Renal Disease, and Cockcroft-Gault equations, and we evaluated baseline factors assoc

10 d by the creatinine-based BIS1 and Cockcroft-Gault equations.

11 f Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and Cockcroft-Gault equations.

12 , age, sex, creatinine levels, and Cockcroft-Gault estimated creatinine clearance, current immunosupp

13 cations was assessed when applying Cockcroft-Gault, MDRD, or CKD-EPI.

14 at of established formulas such as Cockcroft-Gault, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease, and Jellif

15 equations were compared with both Cockcroft-Gault creatinine clearance (CrCl) and measured GFR.

16 ce, 8.2% by MDRD equation, 7.7% by Cockcroft-Gault equation, and 14.8% by creatinine clearance.

17 tion adjusted for BSA, followed by Cockcroft-Gault equation, and CKD-EPI equation, while the worst wa

18 t race), and 90 mL/min (72-120) by Cockcroft-Gault.

19 D equation), Cockcroft-Gault (CG), Cockcroft-Gault corrected for GFR (CG-GFR), and other equations we

20 Estimated creatinine clearance (Cockcroft-Gault) from baseline out to 6 additional years (8 years

21 inary creatinine clearance (CrCl), Cockcroft-Gault (CG), and previously reported creatinine- and/or c

22 our methods: 100/serum creatinine, Cockcroft-Gault equation, creatinine clearance from 24-h urine col

23 enal disease estimated GFR (eGFR), Cockcroft-Gault estimated creatinine clearance, and endogenous 24-

24 MDRD 2 (simplified MDRD equation), Cockcroft-Gault (CG), Cockcroft-Gault corrected for GFR (CG-GFR),

25 by using two prediction equations [Cockcroft-Gault and that from the Modification of Diet in Renal Di

26 We evaluated the following: Cockcroft-Gault, four-variable Modified Diet in Renal Disease, and

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

28 ream urine sample; and reduced GFR-Cockcroft-Gault estimated GFR (abnormal: <60 ml/min per 1.73 m(2))

29 oalbuminuria) or renal impairment (Cockcroft-Gault estimated creatinine clearance <60 ml/min or doubl

30 98+/-19 and 63+/-12 mL/min/1.73 m; Cockcroft-Gault estimated creatinine clearance, 125+/-33 and 85+/-

31 ative Cardiovascular Project, mean Cockcroft-Gault creatinine clearance was 55 +/- 24 ml/min and esti

32 changes in baseline-adjusted mean Cockcroft-Gault GFR at month 12 (primary efficacy end point) were

33 alues, whereas only 40% and 60% of Cockcroft-Gault- and MDRD-based GFRs, respectively, were within th

34 6%, and 18.8% of patients based on Cockcroft-Gault and CKD-EPI, respectively.

35 RD] 2.0 [95% CI 1.0 to 4.2] or OR [Cockcroft-Gault] 1.9 [95% CI 0.9 to 3.9]), and creatinine clearanc

36 timated glomerular filtration rate-Cockcroft-Gault).

37 ed using the recently recalculated Cockcroft-Gault (GFR-CGc) and the simplified Modification of Diet

38 ce (CrCl) were estimated using the Cockcroft-Gault (C-G) and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (M

39 t test for GFR evaluation, but the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) equation is still commonly used in oncology p

40 et in Renal Disease (MDRD) and the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) equations as compared with measured (125)I-io

41 h standardized creatinine, and the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) formula as compared with (125)I-iothalamate G

42 e Study equation (GFRMDRD) and the Cockcroft-Gault (GFRCG) formula.

43 o group during follow-up using the Cockcroft-Gault (P < .001) and CKD-EPI (P = .007) equations, but n

44 creatinine, GFR (estimated by the Cockcroft-Gault [GFRCG] and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease

45 over time estimated with both the Cockcroft-Gault and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaborat

46 in longitudinal analysis using the Cockcroft-Gault and CKD-EPI equations.

47 atinine clearance according to the Cockcroft-Gault and Jelliffe formulas were available from 10,236 p

48 and creatinine clearance using the Cockcroft-Gault and Jelliffe formulas.

49 MR imaging, which outperformed the Cockcroft-Gault and MDRD formulas, adds less than 10 minutes of ta

50 creatinine levels according to the Cockcroft-Gault and modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD) f

51 creatinine clearance based on the Cockcroft-Gault equation (147.9 +/- 50.2 vs 109.1 +/- 32.7 mL/min/

52 ation algorithms: the best was the Cockcroft-Gault equation adjusted for BSA, followed by Cockcroft-G

53 ance was also calculated using the Cockcroft-Gault equation and estimated glomerular filtration rate

54 9 mL/min (calculated by use of the Cockcroft-Gault equation) or Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for G

55 le equation and better than in the Cockcroft-Gault equation, even when the latter was corrected for b

56 atinine clearance (CrCl) using the Cockcroft-Gault equation.

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

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

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

60 ce (eCl(Cr)) was calculated by the Cockcroft-Gault equation.

61 2) from baseline estimated [by the Cockcroft-Gault equation] glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] in tho

62 study formula for the GFR and the Cockcroft-Gault estimate of creatinine clearance, were examined ag

63 isease (62 [69%] studies), but the Cockcroft-Gault formula (22 [24%] studies) and Modification of Die

64 atinine clearance (CrCl) using the Cockcroft-Gault formula (CrCl < 45, 45 to 59, and > or = 60 ml/min

65 clearance (CrCl) derived from the Cockcroft-Gault formula (normal, > or = 90 ml/min; mild, 60 to 89

66 The Cockcroft-Gault formula is recommended to determine a renal indica

67 atinine clearance predicted by the Cockcroft-Gault formula overestimated GFR by 16%.

68 asured creatinine clearance or the Cockcroft-Gault formula was 86.6% and 84.2%, respectively.

69 al exploratory cut points with the Cockcroft-Gault formula.

70 djusted CKD-EPI and 25.51% for the Cockcroft-Gault formula.

71 lant and also calculated using the Cockcroft-Gault method at the transplant evaluation; at the day of

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

73 ration rate was estimated with the Cockcroft-Gault, Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration

74 ion of trial participants with the Cockcroft-Gault, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD), and

75 GFR (eGFR) was calculated with the Cockcroft-Gault, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study (MDRD

76 ion dosing discordance relative to Cockcroft-Gault CrCl or measured GFR for 8 commonly prescribed med

77 nd estimated kidney function using Cockcroft-Gault creatinine clearance (CCl), Modification of Diet i

78 ut at a similar rate as when using Cockcroft-Gault.

79 alculated creatinine clearance via Cockcroft-Gault and estimated glomerular filtration rate via Modif

80 were compared in patients in whom Cockcroft-Gault and CKD-EPI provided concordant or discordant resu

81 ith chronic kidney disease in whom Cockcroft-Gault suggested a dose reduction of dabigatran, edoxaban

82 erular filtration rate (eGFR) with Cockcroft-Gault (C-G) and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (M

83 When compared with Cockcroft-Gault CrCl, the lowest proportion of discordance was fou

84 1.5 +/- 0.6; 1.5 +/- 0.7 mg/dL), or Cockroft Gault calculated creatinine clearance (58.6 +/- 19.7; 59

85 hloretin (P), tetrahydrocurcuminoid Cockroft Gault (T), and resveratrol (R) were tested in single, do

86 glomerular filtration rate was 38 (Cockroft-Gault) and 24 mL/min (modification of diet in renal dise

87 RI was defined as a calculated (Cockroft-Gault) creatinine clearance (CrCl) < or =60 mL/min.

88 ion rates (AER) and renal function (Cockroft-Gault formula) were determined, and clinical and hematol

89 stly used to assess renal function: Cockroft-Gault formula, MDRD-4 (Modification of Diet in Renal Dis

90 The mean Cockroft-Gault estimated creatinine clearances were 47.1+/-24.2,

91 on derived from donor and recipient Cockroft-Gault GFRs and adjusted for the single kidney adaptive r

92 ntration and arithmetic mean +/- SE Cockroft-Gault creatinine clearance calculations, respectively, w

93 rate results were obtained with the Cockroft-Gault and Bjornsson equations.

94 e <60 ml/min, as estimated from the Cockroft-Gault equation.

95 diction was most accurate using the Cockroft-Gault formula as evaluated by Cox proportional hazards m

96 eal-life cohort of HF patients, the Cockroft-Gault formula was the most accurate of the 3 used eGFR f

97 iscrimination improvement using the Cockroft-Gault formula were 21% and 5.04, respectively, versus th

98 nce of <60 mL/min determined by the Cockroft-Gault formula), undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass cardia

99 nce [CrCl]) was estimated using the Cockroft-Gault formula.

100 clearance was calculated using the Cockroft-Gault formula.