Adequacy of decision-making based on each kidney function estimation method for Japanese living kidney donor candidates: a retrospective observational study

Table 2 Comparison of GFR estimation methods to inulin clearance

GFR estimation methods(n = 210)	Value (mL/min/1.73 m²)	p	P10	P30	Absolute error (mL/min/1.73 m²)
C_In	55.5 (6.0–147.0)	Reference
C_Cr	68.0 (8.5–167.3)	< 0.01	24%	57%	10.6 (− 50.5–78.4)
eGFR_Cr	51.0 (7.9–144.4)	< 0.01	26%	71%	− 5.0 (− 56.2–41.4)
eGFR_Cys	60.0 (5.7–181.2)	< 0.05	24%	68%	3.0 (− 51.0–57.5)
eGFR_Cr+Cys	54.8 (7.3–153.1)	n.s.	35%	78%	− 0.6 (− 41.1–48.9)
eGFR-CKDEPI_Cr	57.7 (7.1–118.4)	< 0.01	32%	75%	− 2.4 (− 46.8–47.4)

Continuous variables were presented as medians and ranges (minimum–maximum) and Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare between-groups. GFR glomerular filtration rate; eGFR estimated GFR based on Cr (creatinine) Cys (cystatin C), Cr + Cys (an average of Cr + Cys), or CKDEPI_Cr (a Cr-based equation from The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration ([CKD-EPI]); C_In inulin clearance; C_Cr creatinine clearance; P10 percentage of estimates falling within ± 10% of measured GFR (mGFR); P30, percentage of estimates falling within ± 30% of mGFR

ISSN: 2059-1381