Prevalence of estimated GFR reporting among US clinical laboratories

Am J Kidney Dis. 2008 Oct;52(4):778-87. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2008.05.023. Epub 2008 Aug 3.


Background: Routine laboratory reporting of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) may help clinicians detect kidney disease. The current national prevalence of eGFR reporting in clinical laboratories is unknown; thus, the extent of the situation of laboratories not routinely reporting eGFR with serum creatinine results is not quantified.

Design: Observational analysis.

Setting: National Kidney Disease Education Program survey of clinical laboratories conducted in 2006 to 2007 by mail, web, and telephone follow-up.

Participants: A national random sample, 6,350 clinical laboratories, drawn from the Federal Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments database and stratified by 6 major laboratory types/groupings.

Predictors: Laboratory reports serum creatinine results.

Outcomes: Reporting eGFR values with serum creatinine results.

Measurements: Percentage of laboratories reporting eGFR along with reporting serum creatinine values, reporting protocol, eGFR formula used, and style of reporting cutoff values.

Results: Of laboratories reporting serum creatinine values, 38.4% report eGFR (physician offices, 25.8%; hospitals, 43.6%; independents, 38.9%; community clinics, 47.2%; health fair/insurance/public health, 45.5%; and others, 43.2%). Physician office laboratories have a reporting prevalence lower than other laboratory types (P < 0.001). Of laboratories reporting eGFR, 66.7% do so routinely with all adult serum creatinine determinations; 71.6% use the 4-variable Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation; and 45.3% use the ">60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)" reporting convention. Independent laboratories are least likely to routinely report eGFR (50.6%; P < 0.05) and most likely to report only when specifically requested (45.4%; P < 0.05). High-volume laboratories across all strata are more likely to report eGFR (P < 0.001).

Limitations: Self-reporting by laboratories, federal database did not have names of laboratory directors/managers (intended respondents), assumed accuracy of federal database for sample purposes.

Conclusions: Routine eGFR reporting with serum creatinine values is not yet universal, and laboratories vary in their reporting practices.

Publication types

  • Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

MeSH terms

  • Clinical Laboratory Techniques
  • Creatinine / blood
  • Data Collection
  • Follow-Up Studies
  • Glomerular Filtration Rate / physiology*
  • Humans
  • Kidney Diseases / blood
  • Kidney Diseases / diagnosis*
  • Kidney Diseases / physiopathology*
  • Laboratories / statistics & numerical data*
  • Prevalence
  • Research Design / trends*
  • Surveys and Questionnaires
  • United States


  • Creatinine