Table 6 Comparison of reduced eGFR, reduced eGFR_DEGREE, and CKDu_DEGREE prevalence and risk factors across DEGREE protocol studies

Hamilton, et al. (2020). Malawi, southeast Africa

821

Did not report

Did not report

4.6% (95%CI 3.2, 6.3); n = 38

0.2% (95%CI 0.1, 0.9); n = 2

Increasing age, BMI

Ruiz-Alejos, et al. (2021). Northern Peru, Tumbes region

1,514 total sample; 1,272 after excluding those with DM, HTN, and HP

eGFR ≥ 60 to < 90: 16.6% (95%CI 14.8, 18.6)

1.7% (95%CI 1.1, 2.5); n = 26

eGFR ≥ 60 to < 90: 13%; n = 165

0.9% (95%CI 0.4, 1.5); n = 11

Low physical activity levels, kidney stones; sugarcane work was protective

Ruwanpathirana, et al. (2019). Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka

4,803 total sample; 3,351 after excluding those with DM, HTN, and HP

Did not report

12%; n = 576

Did not report

6.0% (95%CI 5.2, 6.8); n = 202

Advanced age, history of CKD among parents or siblings, living in areas classified as moderate and high CKDu-endemicity; agricultural work was not significant

O’Callaghan-Gordo, et al. (2019). Northern and Southern India^a

12,500

Did not report

Did not report

eGFR ≥ 60 to < 90: 17.0% (95%CI 16.0, 17.0); n = 2,125

Overall: 1.6% (95%CI 1.4, 1.9). Varied from 1.4% in northern urban areas to 4.8% southern rural

Older age, residence in a rural area, being male, and less formal education for each 5 years of school

Western Kenya, Muhoroni Sub-County

782

9.85% (95%CI 7.9, 12.2); n = 77

0.51% (95%CI 0.14, 1.3); n = 4

8.99% (95%CI 6.8, 11.5); n = 55

0.33% (95%CI 0.04, 1.2); n = 2

Sublocation, increasing age, non-normal BMI, HIV positivity