Is CKD being defined too broadly and thus overdiagnosed?
Dr. Himmelfarb: The ASN per se doesn’t have a stand on this issue. But I would be very comfortable saying that the guidelines for classification and diagnosis of CKD promulgated by the National Kidney Foundation have had an overall benefit in developing a standardized approach to CKD. That said, controversy continues over whether the entire classification system for CKD should be based solely on the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and whether, in essence, one size fits all for CKD. A number of efforts are under way to refine the CKD classification system, and many people feel that the classification scheme needs to be revised. One major concern is whether the classification system, which doesn’t take into account age, tends to overdiagnose CKD in the elderly. Under the current system, about one third of people older than 70 will be classified as having CKD, yet it’s not clear that a high proportion of those individuals will progress to end-stage renal disease. The CKD class
Related Questions
- Does the proportion of the genetic and environmental contributions to depression differ for broadly and narrowly defined depression?
- What actual audio and video codecs (compression/decompression methodologies) does the more broadly defined "codec" support?
- About the radiometer, how brightness temperature is defined, and why 3 frequencies are used?
