Indicator Details: Percentage Reporting eGFR with Creatinine
Data Sources
Stratification and Year Choices:

  • CAP

  View Data By:
  Chart Format

  Chart Colors

+ View Data Table

Automatic laboratory reporting of eGFR with serum creatinine has been increasing over time; overall, 89% of surveyed College of American Pathologists (CAP)-accredited laboratories reported eGFR with serum creatinine in 2017 (vs. 90% in 2013 and 70% in 2008).
Chart Explanation: In 2017, the percentage of laboratories accredited by the College of American Pathologists (CAP) reporting eGFR with serum creatinine measurements stayed relatively the same. A total of 89% of the 5,183 laboratories that responded reporting eGFR with serum creatinine, with a slight 1% decrease from 2013 but a substantial increase from  2005 when only 20% of survey respondents reported eGFR with creatinine.
The College of American Pathologists (CAP) performs regular surveys of CAP-accredited laboratories. In June of 2003, 2005, and 2007, annually from 2008 to 2013, and 2017, CAP included in its General Chemistry C-B Survey, in which all CAP-accredited laboratories that performed routine chemistries (representing an estimated 80% or more of U.S. laboratories performing routine chemistries) were sent a questionnaire regarding their eGFR reporting practices (2017 n=5,183 responding laboratories).

In a supplemental survey, laboratories were asked “Does your institution report an estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (GFR) based on a serum or plasma creatinine measurement without measuring urine creatinine?” (yes/no); “If yes, when do you report the estimated GFR?” (with all measured serum or plasma creatinine determinations/only when specifically requested/other); and “If your institution reports an estimated GFR, what formula is used?” (4-parameter MDRD Study equation/IDMS-traceable 4-parameter MDRD Study equation (added 2011)/6-parameter MDRD Study equation/CKD-EPI equation (added 2011)/Cockcroft-Gault/not sure/other).

In the creatinine accuracy calibration survey, which is purchased by laboratories for self-assessment, CAP asked participants to state their creatinine calibration method: IDMS-traceable versus traditional calibration. Note that manufacturers were polled in June 2009; it was found that all major global manufacturers are currently only distributing IDMS-traceable serum creatinine methods (as of the end of 2009) in all markets they serve. All existing lots of older calibration reagents should have been used up during 2010 (exceptions: the Siemens Dimension/Vista Jaffe method, which will continue with its current calibration traceability and the Nova Biomedical blood gas instrument creatinine measurement). Some smaller manufacturers were not represented in the inquiry but all major North American and global manufacturers responded (Miller, 2009;
Description of MeasureLaboratory reporting of eGFR
Data SourceCollege of American Pathologists
Type of Data SourcePrivate
Data SetGeneral Chemistry C-B Survey results
Health Care System DataNo
Regional or National?National
Demographic GroupCAP-accredited laboratories performing general chemistry who responded to surveys
NumeratorCAP-accredited laboratories who reported eGFR
DenominatorCAP-accredited laboratories who responded to survey
Glomerular filtration rateMethod of estimation of GFR varied by laboratory and was part of survey
Primary Data Source IndicatorNumber of U.S. CAP-accredited laboratories who performed general chemistry and reported eGFR/IDMS-traceable calibration
Primary Indicator Method of MeasurementSurvey
Frequency of Measurement (Primary)Bi-annual to 2007, annual from 2008 to 2013, and then 2017 (cross-sectional) for chemistry survey
U.S. Region Covered by Primary VariableAll; some international laboratories (unknown %) included
Period Currently Available2017
Pending Data2018
Additional Data Items of InterestMethod of estimation, reporting standards, frequency of reporting
Limitations of IndicatorOnly those laboratories who chose to participate (who performed general chemistry including creatinine) and responded to the survey were included (response rate 60-77%, depending on survey year); recall bias; international labs included; for creatinine calibration, lab may be unfamiliar with manufacturer’s calibration practice; unknown representativeness of CAP laboratories (although estimated at >80% of U.S. labs); number of laboratories do not represent volume of patients; IDMS-traceable MDRD and CKD-EPI equations only added in later surveys
Analytic ConsiderationsDenominator should be defined if possible. Method, standards & frequency can only be obtained within those reporting eGFR/IDMS-traceable calibration
References and Sources:
Suggested Citation:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Chronic Kidney Disease Surveillance System—United States.