Table 1.

Recent studies utilizing CKD-EPI

Study	Participants n	Demographics	Study aim	Outcomes	Comments
Kurella Tamura et al. [26]	26,231	United States community screening program	CKD awareness comparison of MDRD and EPI equations	9.5 vs. 10% patients were aware of CKD using MDRD versus EPI equations, respectively	using EPI-based GFR led to a modest increase in overall awareness rates, primarily due to reclassiflcation of low-risk unaware participants
White et al. [27]	11,247	Australia baseline screening for the AusDiab study survey of adults >25 years	comparison of prevalence and mortality risk of CKD in adults >25 years	prevalence of CKD was 13.4 vs. 11.5% using MDRD and EPI equations, respectively	lower rates using EPI versus MDRD were seen, most predominantly in women with low CVD risk
Lopez-Suarez et al. [28]	858	Spain population aged 50–75 years	assessing prevalence of CKD by MDRD and EPI equations in older adults	prevalence rates using MDRD were 35% in men and 68% in women vs. 25 and 45% in men and women using EPI, respectively	compared to MDRD, the EPI equation generated a substantial reduction in all patients, most notably in non-albuminuric women
Horio et al. [29]	763 patients	Japan based on estimates of 574,024 participants for health check	comparison of Japanese coefficient-modified CKD-MDRD and CKD-EPI equations	modified CKD-EPI equation yielded a lower prevalence (7.9%) than using CKD-MDRD (10%)	most study participants had CKD and few patients had GFR >90 ml/min