Methods: We evaluated commonly used surrogate and imputed baseline creatinine values against a "reference" creatinine measured during follow-up in an adult clinical trial cohort. Known AKI incidence (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes [KDIGO] criteria) was compared with AKI incidence classified by (1) back-calculation using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation with and without a Chinese ethnicity correction coefficient; (2) back-calculation using the Chronic Kidney Disease-Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation; (3) assigning glomerular filtration rate (GFR) from age and sex-standardized reference tables; and (4) lowest measured creatinine during admission. Back-calculated distributions were performed using GFRs of 75 and 100 ml/min.
Results: All equations using an assumed GFR of 75 ml/min underestimated AKI incidence by more than 50%. Back-calculation with CKD-EPI and GFR of 100 ml/min most accurately predicted AKI but misclassified all AKI stages and had low levels of agreement with true AKI diagnoses. Back-calculation using MDRD and assumed GFR of 100 ml/min, age and sex-reference GFR values adjusted for good health, and lowest creatinine during admission performed similarly, best predicting AKI incidence (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves [AUC ROCs] of 0.85, 0.87, and 0.85, respectively). MDRD back-calculation using a cohort mean GFR showed low total error (22%) and an AUC ROC of 0.85.
Conclusion: Current methods for estimating baseline creatinine are large sources of potential error in acute infection studies. Preferred alternatives include MDRD equation back-calculation with a population mean GFR, age- and sex-specific GFR values corrected for "good health," or lowest measured creatinine. Studies using surrogate baseline creatinine values should report specific methodology.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out among 305 Malaysian adults in six major districts, selected from urban, semi-urban, and rural settings in one state in Malaysia. A self-administered questionnaire was used in this study. It was comprised of socio-demographics, risk-taking behaviors, and validated domains of the Health Belief Model (HBM).
RESULTS: The mean (± SD) age of the respondents was 34.5 (± 9.6) and the majority (59.0%) of them were 30 years or older. Almost 20.7% of the respondents felt they were susceptible to colorectal cancer. Self-reported perceived susceptibility mirrored unsatisfactory screening behaviors owing to the lack of doctors' recommendation, ignorance of screening modalities, procrastination, and the perception that screening was unnecessary. Factors significantly associated with perceived susceptibility to colorectal cancer were gender (OR = 1.8, 95% CI 1.0-3.3), age (OR = 2. 2, 95% CI 1.2-4.0), ethnicity (OR = 0. 3, 95% CI 0.2-0.6), family history of colorectal cancer (OR = 3. 2, 95% CI 1.4-7.4) and alcohol intake (OR = 3.9, 95% CI 2.1-7.5).
CONCLUSION: The present study revealed that screening behavior among respondents was unsatisfactory. Hence, awareness of the importance of screening to prevent colorectal cancers is imperative.