ArticleEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2021
Further evidence to throw caution to the wind: outcomes using an assertive approach to manage refeeding syndrome risk.
Article in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Australasian Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition: Consensus statements on refeeding syndrome.Nutrition & dietetics : the journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia · 2025Guideline
- Addressing Malnutrition in Australian Hospitals: A Scoping Review to Inform Systems Thinking.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026Article
- Refeeding syndrome in head and neck cancers: a risk in the prehabilitation of patients?Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesRefeeding syndrome (RFS) can occur in severely malnourished or starved populations that are provided with rapid or unbalanced nutrition. International guidelines recommend a cautious approach for managing RFS risk (hypocaloric nutrition for 4-7 days), however emerging evidence supports a more assertive approach. This study aimed to describe nutritional management and RFS-related adverse outcomes in patients at risk of RFS receiving care after implementing updated guidelines reflecting emerging evidence. SUBJECTS/
methodsA retrospective cohort study of inpatients at risk of RFS during admission to a large metropolitan hospital in Queensland, Australia between November 2018 and April 2019 was conducted. Data were collected from medical records on nutritional management (provision of nutrition, electrolyte, and vitamin replacement) and outcomes (incidence of RFS, serum electrolyte decreases, hypo/hyperglycaemia, oedema, and organ function disturbance). Data were analysed descriptively; relationships between serum electrolyte decreases and nutrition management were explored using Fisher's Exact tests.
resultsOf the 70 patients identified at risk of RFS (58.4 ± 16.8 years, 56% male, 94% malnourished), majority of participants received required supplementation prior to the commencement of nutrition (thiamine: 76%; micronutrients: 72-100%; multivitamin: 61%) and a standard initial nutrition management plan (79%; cautious: 13%; liberal: 8%). There were no cases of RFS. Four participants experienced RFS-related adverse outcomes (severe electrolyte decreases: n = 2, hypo/hyperglycaemia: n = 2); however, there was no differences in serum electrolyte decreases based on the nutrition management plan (initial: p = 0.912; goal: p = 0.688).
conclusionsThe implementation of more liberal RFS guidelines for the management of RFS risk appears to be safe. Further research examining liberalised refeeding protocols may be useful in updating international guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.