RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Race coefficients (RC) in equations to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR) have been highly questioned. We aimed to evaluate the performance of three equations, namely 2009 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (2009 CKD-EPI), 2021 CKD-EPI, and European Kidney Function Consortium (EKFC) in self-reported Black and White Brazilians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our cross-sectional study compared estimated GFR (eGFR) with 51Cr-EDTA measured GFR (mGFR) in healthy adults, patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with or without chronic kidney disease (CKD), and in non-diabetic individuals with CKD. The performance of these equations was assessed using Bland-Altman plots, Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), bias, P30, and P15 accuracy. RESULTS: Three hundred six White adults (aged 53 ± 17 years, 55% women, mean mGFR: 83 ± 32 mL/min/1.73 m2) and 48 Black participants (aged 53 ± 17 years, 58% women, mGFR: 90 ± 34 mL/min/1.73 m2) were included. No equation achieved the desirable P30 accuracy value of 90%, neither in White (2009 CKD-EPI:78%, 2021 CKD-EPI:76% and EKFC:77%, p = 0.368) nor in Black volunteers (respective values of 77%, 75%, and 77%; p = 0.882). The 2009 CKD-EPI showed the best performance in Black participants (bias: 4.04; CCC: 0.848), whereas the 2021 CKD-EPI performed better in Whites, with smaller bias (1.45), and better concordance correlation coefficient (0.790). The EKFC presented the worst performance. All equations underdiagnosed advanced CKD in White participants, but not in Black. CONCLUSIONS: The 2021 CKD-EPI does not outperform the 2009 CKD-EPI. Instead, it underestimated the occurrence of CKD in White participants. Thus, we do not recommend replacing the 2009 with the new 2021 CKD-EPI in the Brazilian population.
RESUMO
This macro-level scientometrics study aimed to analyze the similarities and differences in the scientific communication patterns of the Brazilian postgraduate programs (BPPs) belonging to the Biological Sciences II field (BS2), as defined by Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES). Also, it was identified the most researched diseases and it was discussed their relationship with the needs of Brazilian public health considering the burden of disease (Disability-Adjusted Life Year - DALY, Brazil) estimated by the World Health Organization (WHO). Thus, the scientific production of the BS2's sub-areas Biophysics, Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Morphology was evaluated from 2013 to 2016, through considering the citation impact, Impact Factor (Journal Citation Reports), and scientific collaboration. Data collected included formal information provided to CAPES by all BPPs through the Plataforma Sucupira as well as metadata from Web of Science documents. In addition, were employed the standardized Medical Subject Headings (PubMed) for the analysis of researched diseases. We concluded that the patterns of scientific communication in Biophysics, Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Morphology were predominantly different. Thus, there is a need to consider specificities among the five sub-areas in the evaluation process performed by CAPES. Different approaches are revealed by identifying the most frequently researched diseases and explaining the contributions of each sub-area for Brazilian public health.
Este estudo cientométrico de nível macro teve como objetivo analisar as semelhanças e as diferenças nos padrões de comunicação científica dos programas de pós-graduação brasileiros (PPGs) da área de Ciências Biológicas II, avaliados pela Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES). Além disso, foram identificadas as doenças mais pesquisadas e foi discutido sua relação com as necessidades de saúde pública brasileira, considerando a carga de doenças (Disability-Adjusted Life Year - DALY, Brasil) estimada pela Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS). Assim, a produção científica das subáreas Biofísica, Bioquímica, Farmacologia, Fisiologia e Morfologia da área de Ciências Biológicas II foi avaliada de 2013 a 2016, considerando o impacto de citações, o Fator de Impacto (Journal Citation Reports) e a colaboração científica. Os dados coletados incluíram informações declaradas à CAPES por todos os PPGs por meio da Plataforma Sucupira, bem como metadados de documentos da Web of Science. Além disso, foram utilizados os cabeçalhos de Medical Subject Headings (PubMed) para a análise das doenças pesquisadas. Concluímos que os padrões de comunicação científica entre as subáreas Biofísica, Bioquímica, Farmacologia, Fisiologia e Morfologia foram predominantemente diferentes. Assim, é necessário considerar as especificidades entre as cinco subáreas no processo de avaliação realizado pela CAPES. Diferentes abordagens são reveladas a partir da identificação das doenças mais pesquisadas e da explicação das contribuições de cada subárea para a saúde pública brasileira.
