Karol & y'all,
Here is my explanation. Renal and Urology News is a newspaper, not a peer-reviewed journal. We readers do not not know if the reporter's report accurately states what the Patel reported. And Patel's findings have not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Please see my 2 replies to Karol's other post.
Christy & Sarah & y'all,
Until I see the peer-reviewed article, I do not know how valid the newspaper article is. One thing for sure, though, as Sarah points out: one major flaw may be the assumption that the standards, and GFR-defined groups ["CKD Stage 3"] in the CKD classification apply to to living kidney donors [LKDs]. Those standards and cut-offs are based on a study of the mortality of less than 2,000 people with 2 kidneys and also known kidney disease. Do those standards and curt-offs apply to LKDs? Do LKDs experience the same mortality rates as people do with the same GFR value who have 2 kidneys and also kidney disease? No-one knows, because a similar study has not been done among just LKDs.
Patel's study, as with the study Karol reported, may be most valuable in indicating that the LKDs' GFRs did not decline faster over the 5 years than do other people's GFRs with 2 kidneys. Neverthless, even then, the study is "observational," and thus is not definitive. (See my 2nd post to Karol's report.)
I "can't wait" until the results of the controlled clinical trial of LKD vs. no LKD are reported -- 2-3 years, I think.
Bill