Abstract: Objective To investigate the current status of measurement (mGFR) and estimation (eGFR) for glomerular filtration rate (GFR)in the clinical laboratories across China.Methods A nationwide questionnaire survey was distributed via the website of the National Center for Clinical Laboratories. The information was collected from 486 clinical laboratories. The survey addressed four key domains:(1) the methods used for mGFR measurement；(2)the formulas applied for eGFR calculation;(3)verification of eGFR equations and comparison with mGFR; and (4) the approaches of reporting GFR in clinical practice. Results Among all participating laboratories,28.4% perfommed mGFR testing,of which 88.6% used the creatinine clearance method. Of the 384 laboratories applying eGFR, only 14.3% validated the equations before clinical implementation. Creatinine-based equations were the most frequently used (86.2%). Among these，CKD-EPI was the predominant formula(56.6% to 62.2%). For cystatin C-based and combined creatinine-cystatin C equations,CKD-EPIwas also the most used (27.6% and 42.5%，respectively). Creatinine was predominantly measured by enzymatic assays(86.0%),with traceability to SI units achieved in 76.4% of enzymatic methods and 71.4% of Jaffe methods.Cystatin C was primarily determined by particle-enhanced turbidimetric immunoassay (69.9%）,with 61.1% of the results traceable to reference materials,while only 19.4% of particle-enhanced nephelometric immunoassay results could be traceable. The reporting rates for mGFR and eGFR were 1OO% and 85.4%，respectively. Conclusion Clinical laboratories in China show limited implementation of mGFR, in-adequate validation of eGFR equations, and insuficient traceability in creatinine and particularly for cystatin C measurements.