Printer Friendly

Recommendations for improving serum creatinine measurement: a report from the Laboratory Working Group of the National Kidney Disease Education Program.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) [12] is a major public health problem in the United States. The incidence and prevalence of end-stage renal disease, kidney failure treated by dialysis, and transplantation have more than quadrupled over the last 2 decades (1). The estimated number of people with earlier stages of CKD is ~19 million, including ~8 million people with a reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR) <60 mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1] and another ~11 million with a GFR >60 mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1] but an abnormally high albumin excretion (urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio >30 mg/g) (2).

The National Kidney Foundation Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (K/DOQI) and the National Kidney Disease Education Program (NKDEP) within the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases recently defined CKD as either kidney damage or a GFR <60 mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1] for 3 months or more, irrespective of cause, and classified stages of CKD severity based on GFR (3). GFR is traditionally considered the best overall index of kidney function (4). The threshold of GFR <60 mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1] was selected as the definition of CKD because at this value approximately one half of an adult's normal kidney function is lost, leading to several possible complications (3).

Understanding by laboratorians worldwide of the importance of reliable serum creatinine measurements in GFR estimation and of factors that may affect creatinine measurement is critical to ongoing global public health efforts to increase the diagnosis and treatment of patients with CKD. The NKDEP Laboratory Working Group, in collaboration with international professional organizations, has developed a plan that enables standardization and improved accuracy (trueness) of serum creatinine measurements in clinical laboratories worldwide.

Materials and Methods for Estimating GFR

GFR cannot be measured by direct means, but it can be assessed by measuring the urinary clearance of exogenous filtration markers such as inulin, iohexol, or iothalamate (5-7). However, because of difficulty in use, expense, radiation exposure, and radionuclide regulatory requirements, these methods have limited use in the routine laboratory and are typically confined to the research setting.

GFR is often estimated clinically from serum concentrations of endogenous creatinine (8) or cystatin C (9,10). Serum cystatin C has not yet been adequately evaluated as an index of GFR (11), however, and serum creatinine alone should not be used to assess the GFR or to detect the presence of CKD because it is affected by the GFR and by factors independent of GFR, including age, sex, race, body size, diet, certain drugs, and laboratory analytical methods (12,13). More accurate and precise estimations of GFR can be obtained with equations that empirically combine all of the average effects from factors that affect serum creatinine other than GFR (14). The currently recommended estimating equation was developed from the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) Study (15) and is based on GFR values measured by iothalamate clearance in 1628 adults and subsequently validated in another 1775 adults in the African American Study of Kidney Disease (AASK) (16). The "four-variable" MDRD Study equation (Eq. 1) uses age, sex, race (African-American vs non-African-American), and serum creatinine (sCr) (17):

GFR [mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1]] = 186 x [(sCr).sup.-1.154] x [(age).sup.-0.203] x (0.742 if female) x (1.210 if African-American) (1)

The MDRD Study equation does not require a body weight variable because it normalizes GFR for a standard body surface area of 1.73 [m.sup.2]. The MDRD Study equation has been demonstrated to be useful for CKD patients and performs similarly in diabetic vs nondiabetic individuals (18), but its use is unclear for healthy individuals and is not recommended for hospitalized patients (19).

Because of the current variability in calibration of serum creatinine assays, assays not calibrated in agreement with the kinetic alkaline picrate assay used in the MDRD Study introduce a source of error into GFR estimates. This calibration error is relatively greater and contributes to larger uncertainty in GFR estimates at lower creatinine values near the upper limit of the reference interval (20). The progressively larger effect on estimated GFR of different calibration biases of creatinine methods is shown in Fig. 1 (21), and the progressively larger effect of measurement imprecision at lower creatinine values is shown in Fig. 2. Thus, calibration bias and measurement imprecision for serum creatinine have a much larger impact on the uncertainty in estimated GFR when serum creatinine is close to the reference value, which is the relevant range for detecting early CKD [GFR <60 mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1]]. This limitation applies to all estimating equations based on serum creatinine, not just the MDRD Study equation (22). For this reason, the NKDEP currently recommends that GFR estimates above 60 mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1] be reported simply as ">60 mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1] rather than as a discrete numeric value (3,18). Variability in creatinine calibration and measurement imprecision also contributes to substantial uncertainty in estimating GFR in children, who usually have lower serum creatinine concentrations than do adults. For estimating GFR in children, the Schwartz and the Counahan-Barratt equations are recommended (23-26). Both provide GFR estimates based on a constant multiplied by the child's height divided by the measured serum creatinine concentration.



Sources of Variability in Estimating GFR

Sources of variability in GFR estimates include underlying biological variability in GFR, biological variability in serum creatinine, and errors in the measurement of serum creatinine and in the estimating equation.

GFR may vary in response to meals, exercise, posture, changes in blood pressure, and other conditions. GFR is also affected by pregnancy, glucose control in diabetes, extracellular fluid volume, antihypertensive medications, and acute and chronic kidney disease (27). Error may occur in measurement of serum and urine filtration markers or of urine flow rate, or in techniques for urine collection. Variability among clearance periods during GFR measurement may also lead to error (28). Median intraindividual CVs reported for measured GFR ranged from 6.3% to 7.5% (6, 29). These GFR measurements were made in controlled studies; consequently, the intraindividual variability was likely lower than would be observed in a typical clinical setting.

In 2 published studies, the mean intraindividual CVs for serum creatinine were 4.1% and 4.3%, respectively (30, 31). Neither of these studies included patients with CKD.

Analytical Performance Specifications for GFR Estimates

Percentile distribution of the differences between estimated and measured GFR is a useful measure to assess the accuracy of GFR estimates. The K/DOQI reported that for an independent sample of 1070 participants evaluated in the GFR range <90 mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1], ~90% of GFR estimates calculated by use of the MDRD Study equation were within 30% of the measured GFR (3). This overall measure of clinical performance included error components from several sources: measurement of serum creatinine, including specimen nonspecificity effects and the effects on determinants of serum creatinine other than GFR, including generation, secretion, and elimination; and from measurement of GFR as iothalamate clearance, including physiologic differences in renal function and various comorbid conditions.

Considering the various types of error, an estimated GFR within 30% of a measured GFR was considered acceptable by K/DOQI for clinical interpretation to identify individuals with CKD as defined by GFR <60 mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1] for 3 months or more and to follow subsequent progression of the disease. For example, at a GFR of 60 mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1], the range of GFR values would be 42-78 mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1].

Analytical Performance Specifications for Serum Creatinine Measurement

Serum creatinine measurements must have a small enough total error that the impact on the total uncertainty of estimated GFR remains within clinically acceptable limits. The critical serum creatinine concentration corresponding to a GFR of 60 mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1] varies with the age, sex, and race of the patient (3). Typical values for serum creatinine at this critical GFR are 88.4 [mu]mol/L (1.00 mg/dL) for a 60-year-old non-African-American female, 99 [mu]mol/L (1.18 mg/dL) for a 60-year-old African-American female, 114 [mu]mol/L (1.30 mg/dL) for a 60-year-old non-African-American male, and 135 [mu]mol/L (1.53 mg/dL) for a 60-year-old African-American male. Thus, creatinine values within or very close to many published reference intervals are consistent with substantial reduction in GFR in some patients. For the same demographic groups at an estimated GFR of 30 mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1], the serum creatinine values are 162, 190, 209, and 247 [mu]mol/L (1.83, 2.15, 2.37, and 2.79 mg/dL), respectively. Because of the dramatic increase in the impact of creatinine bias and imprecision on the error of an estimated GFR as the serum creatinine value gets smaller (Figs. 1 and 2), the laboratory measurement performance goal is currently targeted at a creatinine concentration of 88.4 [mu]mol/L (1.00 mg/dL), which is consistent with a GFR of 60 mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1] for some adult demographic groups and is at the lower range of measurement, where the impact of bias and imprecision will be greater than at higher values.

The 2 primary components of measurement error in serum creatinine are systematic bias, a consistent error typically resulting from calibration differences between measurement procedures, and random measurement error, including within-laboratory effects, between-laboratory random variability in day-to-day calibration, and specimen-specific effects. In a simulation study, gaussian-distributed random errors and increasing systematic biases were added to the baseline serum creatinine measurements of 491 patients in the MDRD Study validation subset who had serum creatinine measurements between 88.4 and 132 [mu]mol/L (1.00 and 1.50 mg/dL). The increase in root mean square error in the estimated GFR, compared with an iothalamate-measured GFR, was calculated for each increment in added bias and imprecision.

The upper bounds for combinations of systematic bias and imprecision in a serum creatinine measurement that would increase the root mean square error in estimating GFR by no more than 10% [an arbitrary modest increase consistent with previous recommendations for the impact of measurement error on clinical utility of laboratory results (32)] are shown in Fig. 3. The serum creatinine measurements obtained in the MDRD Study were assumed to have zero bias; thus, the bias increments should be interpreted as a difference from a zero bias condition. The SD increments were added to the underlying SD in the MDRD Study [2.65 [mu]mol/L (0.03 mg/dL) for creatinine in the 88.4-133 [mu]mol/L (1.00-1.50 mg/dL) range]. The line in Fig. 3 represents combinations of added bias and SD at which the root mean square error was [less than or equal to]12.22 mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1] (a 10% increase). Under the conditions of the simulation analysis, the method performance parameters in Fig. 3 should generalize to other settings. A more detailed description of the simulation analysis can be found in the online Data Supplement that accompanies this report at

The required laboratory measurement performance for serum creatinine can also be estimated based solely on the underlying biological variability (33). Any approach must consider both imprecision and bias in making an estimate of analytical performance required to meet a clinical interpretation goal. A desirable imprecision goal has been proposed as one-half the intraindividual biological variability because this will not increase the total error more than 12% (32). A more recent recommendation for analytical performance goals based on intra- and interindividual biological variability has included both imprecision and bias and has empirically proposed tiered recommendations in categories consistent with minimum, desirable, and optimal method performance to support clinical interpretation of a result (33). The desirable imprecision is consistent with the previous maximum 12% increase in total error, and the other categories for imprecision and bias are arbitrary extensions to allow categorization of method performance to identify those that may need improvement. The analytical goals for serum creatinine measurement using this approach are summarized in Table 1. The minimum total error goal is estimated at 11.4% and the desirable total error goal at 7.6%.


Clinical Laboratory-Based Analytical Systems for Measuring Serum Creatinine to Assess GFR

The methods most widely used to measure serum creatinine are alkaline picrate methods, enzymatic or partially enzymatic assays, and HPLC methods. Isotope-dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) high-order reference methods have been developed for assignment of reference materials but are available in only a few highly specialized laboratories worldwide.

Because no systematic differences between serum and plasma measurements have been reported, we consider serum and plasma results as equivalent (34). Serum creatinine has been found to remain stable during longterm storage and after repeated thawing and refreezing (35) and for up to 24 h in clotted whole blood at room temperature (36).


The method of Jaffe (37) is commonly used to measure serum creatinine in routine laboratories. The presence of interfering substances, particularly proteins, in serum can lead to the overestimation of serum creatinine by as much as 15%-25% by various Jaffe methodologic applications. Many endogenous and exogenous interfering substances contribute to the lack of analytical specificity in the Jaffe method (38-76). Interferences from glucose (65-67) and acetoacetate (58) are particularly important because diabetic persons are a high-risk population to develop CKD. Several modifications, including optimization of kinetic assays, have been made to improve method specificity and minimize susceptibility to interfering substances (38, 77-81).

In a study to evaluate the effect of a compensated Jaffe method on estimated GFR, the MDRD Study equation overestimated GFR by ~50% in individuals with serum creatinine concentrations <155 [mu]mol/L (1.75 mg/dL) (82). In another study, serum creatinine was measured by a new modified kinetic Jaffe reaction and a modified version of the established enzymatic creatinine p-amino-phenazone (PAP) method to determine reference intervals for serum creatinine (83). The enzymatic assay was standardized against the IDMS method, and the calibrator set point for the Jaffe method was established by measuring several hundred serum pools by gas chromatography (GC)-IDMS and the Jaffe method. Results indicated that to get agreement with the enzymatic method, an offset of 21 [mu]mol/L (0.234 mg/dL) was necessary to further correct the modified Jaffe method for noncreatinine Jaffe-reaction compounds. Thus, even if the imprecision is low and the assay is standardized to an IDMS reference measurement procedure, if analytical nonspecificity bias remains, then errors in estimated GFR for individual patients will occur.


Inorganic chemical-based methods (84, 85) that have been developed as alternatives to the alkaline picrate methods have not been widely implemented clinically because they have not demonstrated improved performance compared with the various adaptations of the Jaffe method. The only alternative methods that have been widely adopted for routine clinical laboratory use are enzymatic creatinine methods (86-89). Although the enzymatic methods have been reported to have generally fewer interferences than the Jaffe methods, there have been reports of various substances that do interfere (90-98).


Early reports suggested that HPLC was a fairly sensitive and analytically specific method for measuring serum creatinine (99,100). More than 50 methods for the analysis of creatinine have been described, including cation-exchange, normal-phase, reversed-phase, and reversed-phase ion-pair chromatography (101). Sample deproteinization improves the specificity of creatinine measurement by HPLC by removing many protein-bound endogenous and exogenous compounds without altering the quantification of creatinine (101-111). Several authors have described direct column injection techniques without the deproteinization step (99,112,113).

Interference studies have demonstrated that HPLC methods have greater analytical specificity than conventional methods (101,103,106,107,109-111,114-117). Sample deproteinization combined with the selectivity of HPLC mobile-phase conditions make it unlikely that many substances will interfere; thus, HPLC appears to provide an excellent designated comparison method for in-house use by manufacturers.


GC-IDMS is considered the method of choice for establishing the true concentration of creatinine in serum because of its excellent specificity and relative SD <0.3% (118-120). In this procedure, creatinine must be derivatized before GC analysis because of its polarity. In addition, a cation-exchange clean-up step before GC analysis is also necessary because creatine (a compound similar to creatinine) is derivatized into the same chemical species as creatinine. More recently, a method coupling HPLC with IDMS for the direct quantification of creatinine was reported (121). This procedure offers simplicity and speed of analysis with the potential for much quicker turn-around of highly accurate serum creatinine results because only a simple protein precipitation without derivatization is required. A blind international interlaboratory comparison study demonstrated that the liquid chromatography (LC)-IDMS method is comparable to the GC-IDMS method, with an observed bias <0.2% and an expanded uncertainty <0.3% (k = 2) (121).

Performance of Current Routine Methods for Creatinine Measurement

Several proficiency testing (PT) providers offer external quality assessment schemes (EQAS) for assessing accuracy of serum creatinine measurements. Unfortunately, the materials typically used for most interlaboratory PT programs do not give the same numeric relationship between 2 methods as that observed for native clinical samples (i.e., noncommutable) for the majority of routine methods, including Creatinine, used by clinical laboratories (122-125). A recent study by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) found that conventional PT specimens were not commutable with a fresh-frozen serum specimen for 69% of Creatinine methods (126). This limitation prevents use of PT results from conventional specimens to evaluate accuracy for an individual laboratory or trueness for a method peer group compared with a reference measurement procedure such as GC-IDMS.

PT and EQAS programs that used carefully collected frozen off-the-clot serum pools, presumably commutable with native clinical sera, and used GC-IDMS as the reference measurement procedure have reported results for evaluation of Creatinine (122,125-128). Collectively, these observations from PT/EQAS programs suggest that a large number of routine methods for serum Creatinine are biased high [range, -5.3 to 27 [mu]mol/L (-0.06 to 0.31 mg/dL) at a concentration of ~80 [mu]mol/L (0.90 mg/dL)] and that a standardization program traceable to a high-order reference measurement procedure would allow manufacturers to achieve substantially improved trueness in Creatinine results with routine methods.

PT data from a method peer group also provide useful information on the interlaboratory SD, representing total imprecision and including contributions from calibration uniformity within a method group and from within-laboratory imprecision, for measuring the dispersion of routine method results, which affects the total error for Creatinine measurement. The 2 largest studies that used a commutable serum sample reported similar method group SDs [0.088-12 [mu]mol/L (0.001-0.131 mg/dL) with a median SD of 5.1 [mu]mol/L (0.058 mg/dL) (126) and ~2.6 to 11 [mu]mol/L (0.03-0.12 mg/dL) (128)] and median CVs [6.4% at a Creatinine concentration of 80 [mu]mol/L (0.90 mg/dL) (126) and ~5% at a Creatinine concentration of 74 [mu]mol/L (0.84 mg/dL) (128)]. Shown in Fig. 4 are the bias and interlaboratory SD for 50 method peer groups from the CAP study (126) superimposed on the total error budget obtained from the simulation study and shown in Fig. 3. Correction of bias would achieve method performance within the limits consistent with a maximum contribution of 10% to the error of estimated GFR for 41 of 50 peer groups.


Within-laboratory imprecision can be determined from internal daily quality-control data. On the basis of data submitted to an interlaboratory quality-control monitoring program (G Cooper, Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc, Quality Systems Division, Irvine, CA., personal communication), interlaboratory CVs correspond to SDs ranging from 1.8 to 7.5 [mu]mol/L (0.02 to 0.085 mg/dL) at the critical Creatinine concentration of 88.4 [mu]mol/L (1.00 mg/dL). These data suggest that intra- and interlaboratory error are of similar magnitude and must be controlled to allow method performance within the desired total error goals.

Resources for Standardization of Serum Creatinine Measurement

To universally implement GFR estimations based on serum Creatinine measurements, a unified effort to standardize routine serum Creatinine measurements is required. Establishing measurement traceability is an important tool to achieve the needed comparability in serum Creatinine measurement results regardless of the method used and/or the laboratory where the analyses are performed. This effort must involve international cooperation among the in vitro diagnostic (IVD) manufacturers, clinical laboratories, professional organizations, government agencies, and EQAS/PT providers.

Achieving traceability of clinical laboratory serum Creatinine measurements through IVD manufacturers would be considerably more efficient than doing so through each of the tens of thousands of clinical laboratories internationally that perform serum Creatinine measurements [e.g., in the United States, 97% of participants in the 2003 CAP survey used instruments from 5 manufacturers (126)]. To achieve improved accuracy of Creatinine results requires that the values assigned by manufacturers to calibrators and control materials are traceable to high-order reference measurement procedures and reference materials. The International Organization for Standardization (I50) has developed a written standard that details a pathway for establishing traceability of clinical laboratory measurement results (129).

The only exception to this intervention at the level of the IVD manufacturer is for laboratories that elect to use a nonhomogeneous system, in which a reagent from one manufacturer is used with an instrument or a calibrator from another manufacturer. In these situations, the laboratory must assume primary responsibility and be able to document the accuracy of the reported serum Creatinine values.

To address the global need for standardization and traceability of clinical laboratory measurements, the Joint Committee on Traceability in Laboratory Medicine (JCTLM) was created. The JCTLM recently completed the task of critically reviewing reference materials and reference measurement procedures that were submitted for consideration using criteria set forth in ISO Standards 15194 (130) and 15193 (131), which define the characteristics of higher order reference materials and reference measurement procedures, respectively. A first list of approved reference materials and reference measurement procedures is now available through the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures website ( These materials and procedures are tools that the IVD industry can use to demonstrate an unbroken chain of traceability back to the SI unit.


The NIST Standard Reference Material (SRM) 914a, crystalline creatinine, is intended for use in calibration of reference measurement procedures. Calibrator solutions of SRM 914a, prepared by dissolving crystalline creatinine in aqueous buffer, are intended primarily for use in high-order reference measurement procedures (e.g., GC-IDMS and LC-IDMS) and are not generally suitable for direct assay by routine clinical analyzers.

NIST (SRM 909b-1 and -2) and the Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM; BCR 573, 574, and 575) offer multilevel lyophilized human serum-based certified reference materials with GC-IDMS-assigned values. These materials are intended as trueness control products for high-order reference measurement procedures. Although these are human serum-based materials, the matrix has been altered by converting plasma to serum and by lyophilization, potentially altering the recovery of creatinine in these fluids by routine methods. Because the commutability of these materials with native clinical sera has not been established for routine methods, caution should be exercised when using them as reference materials for calibration purposes or as trueness controls. Reference material that is noncommutable with native clinical serum samples can cause significant error in method calibration.


The NKDEP, CAP, and NIST have collaborated to prepare a human serum-creatinine reference material with acceptable commutability with native clinical specimens in routine methods. This material is a fresh-frozen human serum pool prepared according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guideline C-37A (132). Two concentrations, ~71 and 354 [mu]mol/L (0.8 and 4.0 mg/dL), have been prepared by supplementation with crystalline creatinine to achieve a material with increased concentration. These materials will be value-assigned by NIST with the GC-IDMS and LC-IDMS reference measurement procedures. The materials will be designated NIST SRM 967, are expected to be commutable with native human sera, and will be validated for commutability with a variety of routine methods. NIST plans to submit this new reference material to JCTLM for inclusion in the approved list.


EQAS and PT providers should make available commutable materials for regularly recurring assessment of serum creatinine measurement performance in routine clinical laboratories. CAP, in collaboration with NKDEP and NIST, has introduced a Calibration Verification/Linearity Survey (LN-24) for serum creatinine [see page 87 in the 2005 Surveys and Educational Anatomic Pathology Programs catalog ( 05.pdf)]. This new proficiency testing survey was initiated in 2004 and covers the range needed to detect early stages of CKD, 44-354 [mu]mol/L (0.50-4.00 mg/dL). Target values are assigned by NIST, using IDMS. This external PT program uses frozen off-the-clot human serum pools prepared according to CLSI C-37A (132). NIST, in collaboration with CAP and NKDEP, will evaluate the commutability of LN-24. EQA and PT surveys will provide IVD manufacturers and individual clinical laboratories an excellent way to validate the traceability of their clinical measurement procedures.


Three GC-IDMS methods, nominated by the University of Ghent (Belgium), the German Society of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (DGKC), and NIST, have been approved by the JCTLM as reference measurement procedures for serum creatinine (118-120). All 3 of these methods require a separation step to remove creatine, which gives the same derivatization product as creatinine, before derivatization of the creatinine or the GC step and are therefore very time-consuming procedures with limited sample throughput. An alternative approach to standardizing results and establishing traceability to a reference measurement procedure, particularly when the commutability of reference materials is not known, is for IVD manufacturers to split samples with a laboratory performing a reference measurement procedure. An LCIDMS method has been developed for serum creatinine and nominated in the JCTLM cycle II for consideration as a reference measurement procedure (121). LC-IDMS methods have much simpler and faster sample preparation than do GC-IDMS methods and would be much more amenable to split-sample comparisons on a more timely basis.

Implementation of Estimated GFR Calculated from Serum Creatinine by Use of the Curre~ MDRD Study Equation

The NKDEP recommends immediate implementation of GFR estimation with the MDRD Study equation, before creatinine standardization is implemented. A routine method in a central laboratory was used to develop and validate the MDRD Study equation, but not unexpectedly this method had a small positive bias compared with the GC-IDMS reference measurement procedure. The difference between the calibration bias for this method and that of most current routine methods is relatively small. Consequently, the impact of bias on the uncertainty in estimated GFR, although not meeting the desirable goals, is still thought to provide substantial clinical benefit in identifying patients with early stages of CKD.

In implementing estimated GFR calculated with the MDRD Study equation, laboratories must address several issues. The equation is applicable to adults 18 years and older. The impact of creatinine measurement error increases dramatically at higher GFRs (lower creatinine); therefore, for an estimated GFR >60 mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1], reporting of numeric values is not recommended. Reporting of two values for estimated GFR is recommended: one if the patient is African-American and a second if the patient is not African-American, because the equation does not address mixed ethnicity. The computer implementation must not compute a value if there is any missing information. Finally, the implementation must correct the estimated GFR if there is a correction made to the serum creatinine, to the birth date (age), or to the sex.

When creatinine method standardization and traceability to IDMS are introduced, a clear understanding of the clinical impact is necessary. A systematic program to inform laboratories of the clinical ramifications of a change in calibration of serum creatinine needs to be developed in collaboration with method manufacturers. Because most current routine serum creatinine measurement procedures have a small positive bias, recalibration will decrease the numeric value of the serum creatinine concentration. Because the creatinine method used to develop and validate the MDRD Study equation was not traceable to IDMS, the appropriate changes in the MDRD equation coefficients must be coordinated with the change in creatinine calibration traceability. An improved GFR-estimating equation based on serum creatinine values traceable to IDMS reference measurement procedures will be presented in the fall of 2005 (133).

When introducing revised serum creatinine calibration to be traceable to IDMS, laboratories will need to communicate the following to healthcare providers: the serum creatinine reference interval will change to lower values, calculations of estimated GFR used by pharmacies or other groups to adjust drug dosages will be affected by the decreased creatinine values, measured and calculated creatinine clearance values will increase, and the corresponding reference interval will be different. Note that estimated GFR obtained with the MDRD Study equation is more accurate than creatinine clearance (3), and use of creatinine clearance should be discouraged in patients with normal body size. The magnitude and impact of this calibration change must be carefully established for each creatinine routine method so that after standardization, if an adjustment in decision-making criteria is required, a quantitative link with the current criteria will be available. Recommendations from Australia (134) and the United Kingdom (135) have recently been published.

Limitations of the MDRD Study Equation

There are limitations to use of the MDRD Study equation:

* The performance of the MDRD Study equation in healthy individuals or in patients with CKD and a GFR [greater than or equal to]90 mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1] is unclear.

* The MDRD Study equation has not been tested in children, the elderly >75 years, pregnant women, patients with serious comorbid conditions, or persons with extremes of body size, muscle mass, or nutritional status. Application to these patient groups may lead to errors in GFR estimation.

* Variability in serum creatinine measurement renders all estimating equations for GFR, including the MDRD Study equation, substantially less accurate in the reference (normal) and slightly increased range of serum creatinine concentrations [<133 [mu]mol/L (1.50 mg/dL)], which is the relevant range for detecting CKD [GFR <60 mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1]] in adults.

* The majority of routine methods meet the required precision performance; however, current bias performance of routine methods for serum creatinine is suboptimal for meeting the total error goal for estimating GFR using the MDRD Study equation.

* Analytical nonspecificity biases found in individual patient samples can significantly affect the accuracy of GFR estimates computed from serum creatinine.

* Standardization of calibration does not correct for analytical interferentes (nonspecificity bias). Nonspecificity issues must be addressed by IVD manufacturers.

* Implementing traceability of serum creatinine assays to GC- or LC-IDMS will lead to changes in the clinical decision-making criteria currently used for serum creatinine and creatinine clearance and will compromise any clinical decisions based on the estimated GFR unless the estimated GFR is calculated by use of the new MDRD equation based on creatinine values traceable to an IDMS reference method (to be presented in the fall of 2005).

* Adjustment of routine method calibration to be traceable to GC- or LC-IDMS will impact clinical interpretation of creatinine results and will require the following: communication of reference interval changes; communication to pharmacies of the change in creatinine values that will impact drug dose adjustment; communication of change in creatinine clearance values and the corresponding reference intervals; and adjustment of coefficients in the equation used to calculate estimated GFR.

Recommendations of the NKDEP Laboratory Working Group

For both IVD Manufacturers and clinical laboratories, the NKDEP Laboratory Working Group is making the following recommendations:

* Implement estimated GFR now, using the MDRD Study equation for routine methods that have not been recalibrated to be traceable to IDMS until a revised MDRD Study equation and routine methods traceable to IDMS are ready for use.

* IVD manufacturers should recalibrate serum creatinine methods to be traceable to IDMS and should coordinate the introduction of recalibrated serum creatinine methods with the introduction of a revised GFR-estimating equation appropriate for use with zero-biased routine methods. If coordination cannot be accommodated, IVD manufacturers should collaborate with the NKDEP and other professional organizations to communicate to customers the clinical issues associated with recalibrating serum creatinine (see the fourth recommendation for NKDEP in collaboration with other professional organizations).

* Report estimated GFR values above 60 mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1] as ">60 mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1]" and not as an exact number. For values <60 mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1], the report should give the numeric estimate rounded to the nearest whole number, such as "35 mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1]".

* Report serum creatinine values as mg/dL to 2 decimal places (e.g., 0.92 mg/dL instead of 0.9 mg/dL). Serum creatinine values reported as [mu]mol/L should be reported as the nearest whole number (e.g., 109 [mu]mol/L instead of 109.3 [mu]mol/L).

* After recalibration to IDMS, a realistic total error goal for creatinine measurement is a maximum 10% increase in the relative error of the estimated GFR. Routine methods could achieve this total error goal if analytical imprecision (including between-laboratory calibration variability) is <8% and analytical bias (compared with an IDMS reference measurement procedure) is <5% at all serum creatinine concentrations [greater than or equal to]88.4 [mu]mol/L (1.00 mg/ dL).


* IVD manufacturers should ensure optimal performance at 88.4 [mu]mol/L (1.00 mg/dL) for existing and new methods, and ensure that comparable trueness and imprecision extend throughout the analytical measurement range.

* IVD manufacturers need to improve imprecision at creatinine concentrations <88.4 [mu]mol/L (1.00 mg/ dL) to allow extension of estimated GFR to values >60 mL * [min.sup.-1] * [(1.73 [m.sup.2]).sup.-1] and to reduce the uncertainty in estimated GFR for pediatric populations.

* IVD manufacturers must address analytical non-specificity bias in current routine serum creatinine methods.

* Software provided by laboratory information system vendors and IVD manufacturers should change the equation used to estimate GFR to use the MDRD Study equation. Software should be updated to use the revised GFR-estimating equation when it is available and in coordination with standardization of routine method traceability to IDMS.


* Determine the differences in clinical decision criteria that may result from establishing traceability of serum creatinine methods to IDMS.

* Develop a replacement for the MDRD Study equation to estimate GFR using serum creatinine measurements that are traceable to IDMS, taking care to ensure that any modification is quantitatively linked to decision outcomes made with the current MDRD Study equation.

* Work with IVD manufacturers and clinical laboratories to coordinate introduction of method traceability to IDMS with introduction of a revised GFR-estimating equation.

* Develop guidelines to help manufacturers communicate to clinical laboratories the best approach to coordinate the introduction of serum creatinine traceability to IDMS with the simultaneous introduction of a new GFR-estimating equation and the resulting changes in clinical interpretation of serum creatinine. The following will need to be addressed: change in the serum creatinine reference intervals; changes in creatinine clearance values and reference intervals; communication to pharmacies of the change in creatinine values that will impact drug dose adjustment; adjustment of coefficients in the equation used to calculate the estimated GFR.

* Coordinate introduction of traceability of serum creatinine to IDMS with PT/EQAS providers to ensure that appropriate participant grading adjustments are made during the transition between calibration schemes.

* Establish a small group of reference laboratories, in the United States and other countries, that can perform high-throughput reference measurement procedures for serum creatinine and provide <1 month turnaround time at reasonable cost such that IVD manufacturers, PT providers, and other interested parties can obtain creatinine results that are accurate and traceable to a high-order reference method. The IFCC has convened a Working Group on GFR that will establish a reference laboratory network for serum creatinine.

* If, in the future, an alternative filtration marker replaces serum creatinine or is used in addition to serum creatinine to estimate GFR, a similar program for assay standardization should be developed. A working group on the standardization of cystatin C is already active in IFCC.

* Professional organizations should implement programs to educate their memberships regarding the need for reliable serum creatinine measurements and the proper use of the MDRD Study equation to assess CKD risk. The IFCC Working Group on GFR, in collaboration with NKDEP, will coordinate the global introduction of standardized creatinine together with new GFR-estimating equations as well as education of laboratory professionals regarding the importance of assessing CKD risk.


* Provide tools to assist IVD manufacturers to reduce analytical bias because many automated routine methods can meet or exceed the imprecision goal (less than ~8%) necessary to meet the maximum 10% impact on estimated GFR.

* Develop readily available reference materials for serum creatinine with demonstrated commutability to individual patient sera with a wide variety of routine methods and submit them to JCTLM for review and acceptance. NIST SRM 967 [two concentrations, ~71 [mu]mol/L (0.80 mg/dL) and 354 [mu]mol/L (4.00 mg/dL)] is expected to fulfill this need when available.

* Make available a high-order reference measurement procedure (e.g., LC-IDMS) with high throughput and validated to have little or no bias relative to GC-IDMS. Such a high-order, high-throughput reference measurement procedure can assist IVD manufacturers in validating the trueness of their methods and can assist in validating commutability of reference materials. Additional reference laboratories will be needed to meet the anticipated demand for analytical services to establish and validate traceability to the reference method.


* Introduce a regularly recurring program that uses commutable serum materials with target values traceable to IDMS reference measurement procedures, so that IVD manufacturers can, on an ongoing basis, use routine method results to assess the performance of clinical laboratories and the success of their accuracy transfer processes.

Members of the NKDEP Laboratory Working Group

The members of the NKDEP Laboratory Working Group are John Eckfeldt, MD, PhD, University of Minnesota, National Kidney Disease Education Program, Laboratory Working Group Chair; Thomas Hostetter, MD, Director, National Kidney Disease Education Program and Director, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health; Elisa Gladstone, MPH, National Kidney Disease Education Program Associate Director, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institutes of Health; Joris Delanghe, MD, PhD, University Hospital Ghent (European Communities Confederation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine); James Fleming, PhD, FACB, Laboratory Corporation of America; Neil Greenberg, PhD, Ortho Clinical Diagnostics (AdvaMed); Ethan Hausman, MD, FAAP, FCAP (US Food and Drug Administration); Glen Hortin, MD, PhD, National Institutes of Health; Harvey Kaufman, MD, Quest Diagnostics; Anthony Killeen, MD, PhD, University of Minnesota (College of American Pathologists); David A. Lacher, MD, MEd, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Timothy Larson, MD, Mayo Clinic Renal Laboratory (AACC); Andrew 5. Levey, MD, Tufts-New England Medical Center; Frederick Van Lente, PhD, Cleveland Clinic (CKD Epidemiology Collaboration); Greg Miller, PhD, Virginia Commonwealth University (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, formerly NCCLS); Gary Myers, PhD (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention); Mauro Panteghini, MD, University degli Studi di Milano (International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine); David W. Seccombe, MD, PhD, Canadian External Quality Assessment Laboratory; Michael Welch, PhD, National Institute of Standards and Technology. Names that appear with an organization in parentheses have been designated that organization s official working group representative.

We thank Elisa Gladstone for her outstanding assistance with the preparation of this manuscript and for her excellent logistic support of the Laboratory Working Group.

Received April 26, 2005; accepted September 2, 2005.

Previously published online at DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2005.0525144


(1.) US Renal Data System, USRDS 2002 annual data report: atlas of end-stage renal disease in the United States. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 2002.

(2.) Coresh J, Astor BC, Greene T, Eknoyan G, Levey AS. Prevalence of chronic kidney disease and decreased kidney function in the adult US population: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Am J Kidney Dis 2003;41:1-12.

(3.) National Kidney Foundation. K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative. Am J Kidney Dis 2002;39:S1-246.

(4.) Smith HW. Comparative physiology of the kidney. In: The kidney: structure and function in health and disease. New York: Oxford University Press, 1951:520-74.

(5.) Perrone RD, Steinmen TI, Beck GJ, Skibinski CI, Royal H, Lawlor M, et al. Utility of radioisotopic filtration markers in chronic renal insufficiency: simultaneous comparison of [sup.125]l-iothalamate, [sup.169]Yb-DTPA, [sup.99m]Tc-DTPA, and inulin. The Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group. Am J Kidney Dis 1990;16:224-35.

(6.) Levey AS, Greene T, Schluchter MD, Cleary PA, Teschan PE, Lorenz RA, et al. Glomerular filtration rate measurements in clinical trials. Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study Group and the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. J Am Soc Nephrol 1993;4:1159-71.

(7.) Israelit AH, Long DL, White UG, Hall AR. Measurement of glomerular filtration rate utilizing a single subcutaneous injection of 1251-sodium iothalamate. Kidney Int 1973;4:345-9.

(8.) Levey AS. Measurement of renal function in chronic renal disease. Kidney Int 1990;38:167-84.

(9.) Grubb A0. Cystatin C-properties and use as diagnostic marker. Adv Clin Chem 2000;35:63-99.

(10.) Laterza 0, Price C, Scott M. Cystatin C: an improved estimator of glomerular filtration rate? Clin Chem 2002;48:699-707.

(11.) Stevens LA, Levey AS. Chronic kidney disease in the elderly. How to assess risk? [Editorial]. N Engl J Med 2005;352:2122-4.

(12.) Shemesh 0, Golbety H, Kriss JP, Myers BD. Limitations of creatinine as a filtration marker in glomerulopathic patients. Kidney Int 1985;28:830-8.

(13.) Perrone RD, Madias NE, Levey AS. Serum creatinine as an index of renal function: new insights into old concepts. Clin Chem 1992;38:1933-53.

(14.) Stevens LA, Levey AS. Clinical implications for estimating equations for GFR. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:959-61.

(15.) Levey AS, Bosch JP, Lewis JB, Greene T, Rogers N, Roth D, et al. A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. Ann Intern Med 1999;130:461-70.

(16.) Lewis J, Agodoa L, Cheek D, Greene T, Middleton J, O'Connor D, et al. African-American Study of Hypertension and Kidney Disease. Comparison of cross-sectional renal function measurements in African Americans with hypertensive nephrosclerosis and of primary formulas to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Am J Kidney Dis 2001;38:744-53.

(17.) Levey AS, Greene T, Kusek JW, Beck GJ, Group MS. A simplified equation to predict glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine [Abstract]. J Am Soc Nephrol 2000;11:A0828.

(18.) Poggio ED, Wang X, Greene T, Van Lente F, Hall PM. Performance of the modification of diet in renal disease and Cockcroft-Gault equations in the estimation of GFR in health and in chronic kidney disease. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005;16:459-66.

(19.) Poggio ED, Nef PC, Wang X, Greene T, Van Lente F, Dennis VW, et al. Performance of the Cockcroft-Gault and modification of diet in renal disease equations in estimating GFR in ill hospitalized patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2005;46:242-52.

(20.) Coresh J, Astor BC, McQuillan G, Kusek J, Greene T, Van Lente F, et al. Calibration and random variation of the serum creatinine assay as critical elements of using equations to estimate glomerular filtration rate. Am J Kidney Dis 2002;39:920-9.

(21.) Murthy K, Stevens LA, Stark PC, Levey AS. Variations in serum creatinine assay calibration: a practical application to glomerular filtration rate estimation. Kidney Int 2005;68:1884-7.

(22.) Verhave JC, Balje-Volkers CP, Hillege HL, Dezeeuw D, Dejong PE. The reliability of different formulae to predict creatinine clearance. J Intern Med 2003;253:563-73.

(23.) Schwarfz GJ, Haycock GB, Edelmann CM Jr, Spitzer A. A simple estimate of glomerular filtration rate in children derived from body length and plasma creatinine. Pediatrics 1976;58:25963.

(24.) Schwartz GJ, Feld LG, Langford DJ. A simple estimate of glomerular filtration rate in full-term infants during the first year of life. J Pediatr 1984;104:849-54.

(25.) Schwartz GJ, Gauthier B. A simple estimate of glomerular filtration rate in adolescent boys. J Pediatr 1985;106:522-6.

(26.) Counahan R, Chantler C, Ghazali S, Kirkwood B, Rose F, Barratt TM. Estimates of glomerular filtration rate from plasma creatinine concentration in children. Arch Dis Child 1976;51:875-8.

(27.) Stevens LA, Lafayette RA, Perrone RD, Levey AS. Laboratory evaluation of renal function. In: Schrier RW, ed. Diseases of the kidney and urinary tract, 8th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, in press.

(28.) Levey A. Use of glomerular filtration measurements to asses the progression of renal disease. Semin Nephrol 1989;9:370-9.

(29.) Davies D, Schock N. Age Changes in glomerular filtration rate, effective renal plasma flow, and tubular excretory capacity in adult males. J Clin Invest 1950;29:496-507.

(30.) Gowans EM, Fraser CG. Biological variation of serum and urine creatinine and creatinine clearance: ramifications for interpretation of results and patient care. Ann Clin Biochem 1988;25: 259-63.

(31.) Eckfeldt JH, Chambless LE, Shen YL. Short-term, within-person variability in clinical chemistry test results. Experience from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1994;118:496-500.

(32.) Harris EK. Statistical principles underlying analytic goal setting in clinical chemistry. Am J Clin Pathol 1979;374:72-82.

(33.) Fraser CG, Petersen PH, Libeer JC, Ricos C. Proposals for setting generally applicable quality goals solely based on biology. Ann Clin Biochem 1997;34:8-12.

(34.) Kubasik NP, Lisuzzo CW, Same DG, Sine HE, D'Souza JP. Multilayered film analysis: evaluation of ammonia and creatinine slides. Clin Biochem 1984;17:15-8.

(35.) DiMagno EP, Corle D, O'Brien JF, Masnyk IJ, Go VLW, Aamodt R. Effect of long-term freezer storage, thawing, and refreezing on selected constituents of serum. Mayo Clin Proc 1989;64:1226-34.

(36.) Zhang, DJ, Elswick RK, Miller WG, Bailey JL. Effect of serum-clot contact time on clinical chemistry laboratory results. Clin Chem 1998;44:1325-33.

(37.) Jaffe M. Uberden Niederschlag welchen Pikrinsaure in normalem Harn erzeugt and ueber eine neue Reaction des Kreatinins. Z Physiol Chem 1886;10:391-400.

(38.) Osberg IM, Hammond KB. A solution to the problem of bilirubin interference with the kinetic Jaffe method for serum creatinine. Clin Chem 1978;24:1196-7.

(39.) Gerard SK, Khayam-Bashi H. Characterization of creatinine error in ketotic patients: a prospective comparison of alkaline picrate methods with an enzymatic method. Am J Clin Pathol 1985;84: 659-64.

(40.) Young DS. Effects of drugs on clinical laboratory tests, 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Association for Clinical Chemistry Press, 1995:3-190-3-208.

(41.) Hortin GL, Goolsby K, Slickers KA, Sine HE. Lipemia interference with a rate-blanked creatinine method. Clin Chem 1997;43: 408-10.

(42.) Saah AJ, Koch TR, Drusano GL. Cefoxitin falsely elevates creatinine levels. JAMA 1982;247:205-6.

(43.) Durham SR, Bignell AHC, Wise R. Interference of Cefoxitin in the creatinine estimation and its clinical relevance. J Clin Pathol 1979;32:1148-51.

(44.) Cook JHG. Factors influencing the assay of creatinine. Ann Clin Biochem 1975;12:219-32.

(45.) Christian DG. Drug interference with laboratory blood chemistry determinations. Am J Clin Pathol 1970;54:118-42.

(46.) Knapp ML, Hadid 0. Investigations into negative interference by jaundiced plasma in kinetic Jaffe methods for plasma creatinine determination. Ann Clin Biochem 1987;24:85-97.

(47.) Schmierer DM, Staley MJ, von Witt RJ. Interference by fluorescein with the single end-point determination of creatinine by use of the Jaffe reaction [Letter]. Clin Chem 1981;27:1315.

(48.) Glick MR, Moorehead WR, Oei T0, Moore GR. Acetoacetate and "ketone" interference in kinetic and continuous-flow methods for creatinine [Letter]. Clin Chem 1980;26:1626-7.

(49.) Bye A. Drug interference with creatinine assay [Letter]. Clin Chem 1976;22:283-4.

(50.) Kulkarni S, Wilson AP, Gruneberg RN, Filipiak C, Samuell CT. Interference of cefpirome with the measurement of plasma creatinine. J Antimicrob Chemother 1991;28:617-9.

(51.) Kroll MH, Koch TR, Drusano GL, Warren JW. Lack of interference with creatinine assays by four cephalosporin-like antibiotics. Am J Clin Pathol 1984;82:214-6.

(52.) Guay DR, Meatherall RC, Macaulay PA. Interference of selected second- and third-generation cephalosporins with creatinine determination. Am J Hosp Pharm 1983;40:435-8.

(53.) Hyneck ML, Berardi RR, Johnson RM. Interference of cephalosporins and cefoxitin with serum creatinine determination. Am J Hosp Pharm 1981;38:1348-52.

(54.) Letellier G, Desjarlais F. Analytical interference of drugs in clinical chemistry: I. Study of twenty drugs on seven different instruments. Clin Biochem 1985;18:345-51.

(55.) Green AJ, Halloran SP, Mould GP, Barbour HM, Pritchard JL, Hallworth MJ, et al. Interference by newer cephalosporins in current methods for measuring creatinine. Clin Chem 1990;36: 2139-40.

(56.) Kirby MG, Gal P, Baird HW, Roberts B. Cefoxitin interference with serum creatinine measurement varies with the assay system [Letter]. Clin Chem 1982;28:1981.


(57.) Blank DW, Nanji AA. Ketone Interference in estimation of urinary creatinine; effect on creatinine clearance in diabetic ketoacidosis. Clin Biochem 1982;15:279-80.

(58.) Koumantakis G, Wyndham L. fluorescein interference with urinary creatinine and protein measurements [Letter]. Clin Chem 1991;37:1799.

(59.) Murphy JL, Hurt TL, Griswold WR, Peterson BM, Rodarte A, Krous HF, et al. Interference with creatinine concentration measurement by high dose furosemide infusion. Crit Care Med 1989;17: 889-90.

(60.) Guix P, Parera M, Fuentespina E, Garcia A, Coll R. Study of the interference of haemolysis in the determination of creatinine in the Technicon DAX-72 (Bayer). Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1997;35:115-6.

(61.) Price LA, Newman KJ, Clague AE, Wilson PR, Wenck DJ. Paraquat and diquat interference in the analysis of creatinine by the Jaffe reaction. Pathology 1995;27:154-6.

(62.) Siest G, Appel W, Blijenberg GB, Capolaghi B, Galteau MM, Heusghem C, et al. Drug interference in clinical chemistry: studies on ascorbic acid. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1978;16: 103-10.

(63.) Datta P, Graham GA, Schoen I. Interference by IgG paraproteins in the Jaffe method for creatinine determination. Am J Clin Pathol 1986;85:463-8.

(64.) Jaynes PK, Witte DL, Simpson CH, Feld RD. Interference by some monoclonal IgM's in discrete serum creatinine analysis [Abstract]. Clin Chem 1982;28:1580.

(65.) Da Rin G, Amici G, Virga G, Bardin C, Calzavara P, Bocci C. Correction of glucose concentration interference on Jaffe kinetic creatinine assay in peritoneal dialysis. Am J Nephrol 1995;15: 480-7.

(66.) Lo SC, Tsai KS. Glucose interference in Jaffe creatinine method: effect of calcium from peritoneal dialysate. Clin Chem 1994;40: 2326-7.

(67.) Gerard S, Khayam-Bashi H. Negative interference with the Ektachem (Kodak) enzymic assay for creatinine by high serum glucose [Letter]. Clin Chem 1984;30:1884.

(68.) Mascioli SR, Bantle JP, Freier EF, HoogwerF BJ. Artifactual elevation of serum creatinine level due to fasting. Arch Intern Med 1984;144:1575-6.

(69.) Mali B, Nicholas PC. Jaffe's reaction for creatinine: kinetic study and spectrophotometric characteristics of the product of the reactions of creatinine, acetoacetate and creatinine and aceto-acetate with alkaline picrate. Biochem Soc Trans 1988;16:54950.

(70.) Cruickshank AM, Ballantyne FC, Shenkin A. Negative interference in a kinetic Jaffe method for serum creatinine determination. Ann Clin Biochem 1988;25:112-3.

(71.) Osselaer JC, Lievens MM. More on interference of bilirubin in creatinine determination by Hitachi analyzers. Clin Chem 1991; 37:1460-1.

(72.) Dilena BA. Bacterial interference with measurement of creatinine in stored plasma. Clin Chem 1988;34:1007-8.

(73.) Daugherty NA, Hammond KB, Osberg IM. Bilirubin interference with the kinetic Jaffe method for serum creatinine. Clin Chem 1978; 24:392-3.

(74.) Boot S, LaRoche N, Legg EF. Elimination of bilirubin interference in creatinine assays by routine techniques: comparisons with a high performance liquid chromatography method. Ann Clin Biochem 1994;31:262-6.

(75.) Lolekha PH, Jaruthunyaluck S, Srisawasdi P. Deproteinization of serum: another best approach to eliminate all forms of bilirubin interference on serum creatinine by the kinetic Jaffe reaction. J Clin Lab Anals 2001;15:116-21.

(76.) Dick JB, Bartlett WA, Ibrahim U, Coleiro JA. Interference of fluorescein with creatinine assays. Ann Clin Biochem 1991;28: 311-3.

(77.) Hare RS. Endogenous creatinine in serum and urine. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med 1950;74:148-51.

(78.) Fabiny DL, Ertingshausen G. Automated reaction-rate Method for determination of serum creatinine with the Centrifichem. Clin Chem 1971;17:696-700.

(79.) Swain RR, Briggs SL. Positive interference with the Jaffe reaction by cephalosporin antibiotics. Clin Chem 1977;23:1340-2.

(80.) Kroll MH, Hagengruber C, Elin RJ. Reaction of picrate with creatinine and cepha antibiotics. Clin Chem 1984;30:1664-6.

(81.) Spencer K. Analytical reviews in clinical biochemistry: the estimation of creatinine. Ann Clin Biochem 1986;23:1-25.

(82.) Chan MHM, Ng KF, Szeto CC, Lit LCW, Chow KM, Leung CB, et al. Effect of a compensated Jaffe creatinine method on the estimation of glomerular filtration rate. Ann Clin Biochem 2004;41: 482-4.

(83.) Junge W, Wilke B, Halabi A, Klein G. Determination of reference intervals for serum creatinine, creatinine excretion and creatinine clearance with an enzymatic and a modified Jaffe method. Clin Chim Acta 2004;344:137-48.

(84.) Van Pilsum JF, Martin RP, Kito E, Hess J. Determination of creatine, creatinine, arginine, guanidinoacetic acid, guanidine and methyl guanidine in biological fluids. J Biol Chem 1956;222: 225-35.

(85.) Parekh AC, Sims C. Serum creatinine assay by use of 3,5 dinitrobenzoates: a critique. Clin Chem 1977;23:2066-71.

(86.) Sundberg MW, Becker RW, Esders TW, Figueras J, Goodhue CT. An enzymatic creatinine assay and a direct ammonia assay in coated thin films. Clin Chem 1983;29:645-9.

(87.) Toffaletti J, Blosser N, Hall T, Smith S, Tompkins D. An automated dry-slide enzymatic method evaluated for measurement of creatinine in serum. Clin Chem 1983;29:684-7.

(88.) Tanganelli E, Prencipe L, Bassi D, Cambiaghi S, Murador E. Enzymic assay of creatinine in serum and urine with creatinine iminohydrolase and glutamate dehydrogenase. Clin Chem 1982; 28:1461-4.

(89.) Fossati P, Prencipe L, Berti G. Enzymatic creatinine assay: a new colorimetric method based on hydrogen peroxide measurement. Clin Chem 1983;29:1494-6.

(90.) Mitchell RT, Marshall LH, Lefkowitz LB, Stratton CW. Falsely elevated serum creatinine levels secondary to the presence of 5-fluorocytosine. Am J Clin Pathol 1985;84:251-3.

(91.) Karon BS, Daly TM, Scott MG. Mechanisms of dopamine and dobutamine interference in biochemical tests that use peroxide and peroxidase to generate chromophore. Clin Chem 1998;44: 155-60.

(92.) Weber JA, van Zanten AP. Interferentes in current methods for measurements of creatinine. Clin Chem 1991;37:695-700.

(93.) Amiss JD, McEnroe RJ, Zak B. Bilrubin interference in a peroxidase-coupled procedure for creatinine eliminated by bilirubin oxidase. Clin Chem 1984;30:1389-92.

(94.) Schoenmakers CH, Kuller T, Lindemans J, Blijenberg BG. Automated enzymatic methods for creatinine measurement with special attention to bilirubin interference. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1993;31:861-8.

(95.) Eng CD, Delgado R, Kroll MH. Complex analyte-dependent and analyte-independent interferences with conjugated bilirubin in the enzymatic phenolaminophenazone peroxidase (pap) method for creatinine determination. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1993;31:839-50.

(96.) Bagnoud MA, Reymond JP. Interference of metamizol (dipyrone) on the determination of creatinine with the kodak dry chemistry slide comparison with the enzymatic method from Boehringer. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1993;31:753-7.

(97.) Ali AC, Mihas CC, Campbell JA. Interferentes of 0-raffinose cross-linked hemoglobin in three methods for serum creatinine. Clin Chem 1997;43:1738-43.

(98.) Hummel KM, von Ahsen N, Kuhn RB, Kaboth U, Grunewald RW, Oellerich M, et al. Pseudohypercreatininemia due to positive interference in enzymatic creatinine measurements caused by monoclonal igm in patients with Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia [Letter]. Nephron 2000;86:188-9.

(99.) Brown ND, Sing HC, Neeley WE, Koetitz SE. Determination of "true" serum creatinine by high-performance liquid chromatography combined with a continuous-flow microanalyzer. Clin Chem 1977;23:1281-3.

(100.) Lim CK, Richmond W, Robinson DP, Brown SS. Towards a definitive assay of creatinine in serum and in urine: separation by high-performance liquid chromatography. J Chromatogr 1978; 145:41-9.

(101.) Kagedal B, Olsson B. Determination of creatinine in serum by high-performance liquid chromatography: a comparison of three ion-exchange methods. J Chromatogr 1990;527:21-30.

(102.) Zwang L, Blijenberg BG. assessment of a selected method for creatinine with special emphasis on bilirubin interference. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1991;29:795-800.

(103.) Holmes EW, Oeser TH, Kahn SE, Bekeris L, Bermes EW Jr. Serum creatinine determination by high performance liquid chromatography and five automated chemistry analyzers. Ann Clin Lab Sci 1983;13:503-10.

(104.) Buchanan DN, Tait SK, Domino EF. High-performance liquid chromatographic assay of creatinine in human urine. J Chromatogr 1979;163:212-6.

(105.) Chiou WL, Peng GW, Gadalla MA, Nerenberg ST. Comparison of plasma creatinine levels in patients determined by high-pressure liquid chromatography, automated analysis, and boiling alkaline picrate method. J Pharm Sci 1978;67:292-3.

(106.) Ambrose RT, Ketchum DF, Smith JW. Creatinine determined by "high performance" liquid chromatography. Clin Chem 1983;29: 256-9.

(107.) Rosano TG, Ambrose RT, Wu AH, Swift TA, Yadegari P. Candidate reference method for determining creatinine in serum: method development and interlaboratory validation. Clin Chem 1990;36: 1951-5.

(108.) Schneiderka P, Pacakova V, Stulik K, Kloudova M, Jelinkova K. High-performance liquid chromatographic determination of creatinine in serum, and a correlation of the results with those of the Jaffe and enzymatic methods. J Chromatogr 1993;614: 221-6.

(109.) Scott PH. High-performance liquid-chromatographic measurement of plasma creatinine in newborns. Clin Chem 1992;38: 101-3.

(110.) Paroni R, Arcelloni C, Fermo I, Bonini PA. Determination of creatinine in serum and urine by a rapid liquid-chromatographic method. Clin Chem 1990;36:830-6.

(111.) Marsilio R, Dall'Amico R, Giorfano G, Murer L, Montini G, Ros M, et al. Rapid determination of creatinine in serum and urine by ion-pair high-performance liquid chromatography. Int J Clin Lab Res 1999;29:103-9.

(112.) Kock R, Seitz S, Delvoux B, Greiling H. A Method for the simultaneous determination of creatinine and uric acid in serum by high-performance liquid-chromatography evaluated versus ref erence methods. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1995;33:23-9.

(113.) Puhlmann A, Dulffer T, Kobold U. Multidimensional high-performance liquid chromatography on Pinkerton ISRP and RP18 columns: direct serum injection to quantify creatinine. J Chromatogr 1992;581:129-33.

(114.) Spierto FW, MacNeil ML, Culbreth P, Duncan I, Burtis CA. Development and validation of a liquid-chromatographic procedure for serum creatinine. Clin Chem 1980;26:286-90.

(115.) Soldin SJ, Hill JG. Micromethod for determination of creatinine in biological fluids by high-performance liquid chromatography. Clin Chem 1978;24:747-50.

(116.) Okuda T, Oie T, Nishida M. Liquid-chromatographic measurement of creatinine in serum and urine. Clin Chem 1983;29: 851-3.

(117.) Linnet K, Bruunshuus I. HPLC with enzymatic detection as a candidate reference method forserum creatinine. Clin Chem 1991;37:1669-75.

(118.) Welsh MJ, Cohen A, Hertz HS, Ng KJ, Schaffer R, Van Der Lijn P et al. Determination of serum creatinine by isotope dilution mass spectrometry as a candidate definitive method. Anal Chem 1986; 58:1681-5.

(119.) Steckl D, Reinauer H. Candidate reference methods for the determination of target values for cholesterol, creatinine, uric acid and glucose in external quality assessment and internal accuracy control. I. Method setup. Clin Chem 1993;39:993-1000.

(120.) Siekmann L. Measurement of creatinine in human serum by isotope dilution mass spectrometry. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1985;23:137-44.

(121.) Stokes P, O'Connor G. Development of a liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry method for the high-accuracy determination of creatinine in serum. J Chromatogr B 2003;794:125-36.

(122.) Ross JW, Miller WG, Myers GL, Praestgaard J. The accuracy of laboratory measurements in clinical chemistry. A study of 11 routine chemistry analytes in the College of American Pathologists Chemistry survey with fresh frozen serum, definitive methods and reference methods. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998;122: 587-608.

(123.) Miller WG. Specimen materials, target values and commutability for external quality assessment (proficiency testing) schemes. Clin Chim Acta 2003;327:25-37.

(124.) Ferrero CA, Carobene A, Ceriotti F, Modenese A, Arcelloni C. Behavior of frozen serum pools and lyophilized sera in an external quality-assessment scheme. Clin Chem 1995;41:575-80.

(125.) Carobene A, Ferrero CA, Ceriotti F, Modenese A, Besozzi M, De Giorgi E, et al. Creatinine measurement proficiency testing: assignment of matrix-adjusted ID GC-MS target values. Clin Chem 1997;43:1342-7.

(126.) Miller WG, Myers GL, Ashwood ER, Killeen AA, Wang E, Thienpont LM, et al. Creatinine measurement: state of the art in accuracy and inter-laboratory harmonization. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2005; 129:297-304.

(127.) Stockl D, Libeer JC, Reinauer H, Thienpont LM, De Leenheer AP. Accuracy-based assessment of proficiency testing results with serum from single donation: possibilities and limitations. Clin Chem 1996;42:469-70.

(128.) European Commission-Joint Research Centre, Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements (IRMM). Retieseweg, B-2440. Geel, Belgium: IRMM, 2003.

(129.) International Organization for Standardization. ISO guide 17511. In vitro diagnostic medical devices-measurement of quantities in biological samples-metrological traceability of values as signed to calibrators and control materials. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO, 2003.

(130.) International Organization for Standardization. ISO guide 15194. In vitro diagnostic medical devices--measurement of quantities in samples of biological origin--description of reference materials. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO, 2002.

(131.) International Organization for Standardization. ISO guide 15193. In vitro diagnostic medical devices-measurement of quantities in samples of biological origin-presentation of reference measurement procedures. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO, 2002.

(132.) Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Preparation and validation of commutable frozen human serum pools as secondary reference materials for cholesterol measurement proce dures; approved guideline. CLSI document C37-A. Wayne, PA: CLSI, 1999.

(133.) Levey AS, Coresh J, Greene T, March J, Stevens LA, Kusek J, et al. Expressing the MDRD study equation for estimating GFR with IDMS traceable (gold standard) serum Creatinine values [Abstract]. J Am Soc Nephrol 2005;fn press.

(134.) The Australasian Creatinine Consensus Working Group. Chronic kidney disease and automatic reporting of estimated glomerular filtration rate: a position statement. Med J Aust 2005;183:138-41.

(135.) Lamb EJ, Tomson CRV, Roderick PJ. Estimating kidney function in adults using formulae. Ann Clin Biochem 2005;42:321-45.

(136.) Ricos C, Alvarez V, Cava F, Garcfa-Lario JV, Hernandez A, Jimenez CV, et al. Current databases on biological variation: pros, cons and progress. Stand J Clin Lab Invest 1999;59:491-500.


[1] Division of Laboratory Sciences, Nafional Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevenfion, Atlanta, GA.

[2] Department of Pathology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA.

[3] Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.

[4] Department of Science and Technology, Laboratory Corporation of America, Elon, NC.

[5] Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Rochester, NY.

[6] Department of Quantitative Health Science, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH.

[7] National Kidney Disease Education Program, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda, MD.

[8] Division of Nephrology, Tufts New England Medical Center, Boston, MA.

[9] Department of Clinical Sciences "Luigi Sacco", University of Milan, Milan, Italy.

[10] Chemical Science and Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.

[11] Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

[12] Nonstandard abbreviations: CKD, chronic kidney disease; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; K/DOQI, Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Inifiative; NKDEP, Nafional Kidney Disease Education Program; MDRD, Modification of Diet and Renal Disease; IDMS, isotope dilution mass spectrometry; GC, gas chromatography; LC, liquid chromatography; PT, proficiency testing; EQAS, external quality assurance scheme; CAP, College of American Pathologists; IVD, in vitro diagnostics; ISO, International Organization for Standardizafion; JCTLM, Joint Committee on Traceability in Laboratory Medicine; and CLSI, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute.

* Address correspondence to this author at: Division of Laboratory Sciences, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30341. Fax 770-488-4192; e-mail
Table 1. Analytical performance goals for creatinine measurements based
on biological variability.

CVi (a) CVg (b) CVa goal (c)

4.3% 12.90 Minimum (0.75 CVi), 3.2%

 Desirable (0.50 CVi), 2.2%

 Optimum (0.25 CVi), 1.1%

CVi (a) CVg (b) Bias goal TE goal (d)

4.3% 12.90 Minimum [0.375 Minimum acceptable
 ([CVi.sup.2] + performance, 11.4%
 [[CVg.sup.2]).sup.1/2]], 5.1%
 Desirable [0.25 Desirable
 ([CVi.sup.2] + performance, 7.6%
 [CVg.sup.2]).sup.1/2]], 3.4%
 Optimum [0.125 ([CVi.sup.2] + Optimum
 [CVg.sup.2]).sup.1/2]], 1.7% performance, 3.8%

(a) CVi, mean intraindividual biological variation (136).

(b) CVg, mean interindividual biological variation (136).

(c) CVa, analytical imprecision. When the minimum acceptable
imprecision goal is achieved, the contribution of analytical
variability to total variability is at most 25%. When the desirable
imprecision goal is achieved, the contribution of analytical
variability to total variability is <12%. When the optimum imprecision
goal is achieved, the contribution of analytical variability to total
variability is a maximum of 3% (33).

(d) TE, total error. Goal was calculated as: bias goal + (1.96 x CVa
COPYRIGHT 2006 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2006 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Special Report
Author:Myers, Gary L.; Miller, W. Greg; Coresh, Josef; Fleming, James; Greenberg, Neil; Greene, Tom; Hostet
Publication:Clinical Chemistry
Article Type:Clinical report
Date:Jan 1, 2006
Previous Article:Guideline quality and guideline content: are they related?
Next Article:Unbound free fatty acids and heart-type fatty acid-binding protein: diagnostic assays and clinical applications.

Related Articles
A novel equation to estimate glomerular filtration rate using beta-trace protein.
Expressing the modification of diet in renal disease study equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate with standardized serum creatinine...
Plasma concentrations of cystatin c in patients with coronary heart disease and risk for secondary cardiovascular events: more than simply a marker...
Cystatin C and estimates of renal function: searching for a better measure of kidney function in diabetic patients.
Automatic reporting of estimated glomerular filtration rate--jumping the gun?
Estimating glomerular filtration rate in Black south Africans by use of the Modification of diet in renal disease and Cockcroft-gault equations.
Diagnostic value of plasma cystatin C as a glomerular filtration marker in decompensated liver cirrhosis.
Correlation of plasma concentrations of cystatin C and creatinine to inulin clearance in a pediatric population.
Chronic kidney disease: the new epidemic and its impact on West Virginia.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters