Concordance between creatinine- and cystatin C-based eGFR in clinical practice

Figures & data

Figure 1. FASage (ml/min/1.73 m²) plotted against FAScys (ml/min/1.73m²) with the intersection lines representing 40% of the respective axis.

Figure 2. FASage (ml/min/1.73 m²) plotted against FAScys (ml/min/1.73m²) in patients with neural tube defects (a) and patients with nephritis (b) with the intersection lines representing 40% of the respective axis.

Table 1. Differences in median levels or prevalences of different variables between the high agreement (|ΔeGFR| ≤ 40%) and the low agreement (|ΔeGFR| > 40%) groups.

	High agreement (n = 1388)	Low agreement (n = 208)	p
Mean eGFR (ml/min/1.73m^2)	97.4 (83.5 to 112.7)	98.4 (69.9 to 119.0)	.76
BMI (z-score)	0.18 (−0.36 to 0.91)	0.16 (−0.36 to 0.85)	.61
Age (years)	12.1 (7.9 to 15.2)	10.2 (6.0 to 15.2)	.02*
Glucocorticosteroid use (%)	4.3	3.4	.52
Males (%)	59.1	57.2	.60
Diagnosis
Urological (%)	32.9	28.8	.25
Nephritis (%)	10.4	7.7	.23
Single kidney (%)	24.9	21.2	.24
Neural tube defect (%)	13.6	27.4	.00**
Other (%)	18.2	14.9	.24

Results of continuous variables are given as median (IQR) and dichotomous variables are given in % of cases. *<0.05 and **<0.01