LAUSR

AimTo assess the accuracy of the CG, CG-corrected, MDRD-6, MDRD-4 and CKD-EPI formulae when diagnosing CKD and to compare the results for creatinine clearance.Subject and methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted with hypertensive individuals monitored by the Primary Health Care Service in Brazil (n = 293). Renal function was analyzed based on serum creatinine levels and creatinine clearance (24 h). The GFR was estimated using the CG, CG-corrected, MDRD-6, MDRD-4 and CKD-EPI formulae. The accuracy of the CKD diagnosis was assessed by analyzing sensitivity and specificity with confidence intervals (95%), receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curve and the area under the curve (AUC) values.ResultsThe CKD-EPI formula provided the best balance between sensitivity, 76.7 (66.4–85.2), and specificity, 71.9 (65.3–78.0), as well as the highest AUC value (0.808). Concerning the ROC analysis, the curve of the CKD-EPI formula confirmed its greater precision.ConclusionsThe results of the present study indicate that the CKD-EPI formula is the best method for estimating the GFR. Thus, it is possible to implement low-cost actions focused on the early detection and prevention of complications of CKD.