Trial reportEuropean geriatric medicine2021
A comparison of two different refeeding protocols and its effect on hand grip strength and refeeding syndrome: a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in European geriatric medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.
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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Intravenous Electrolyte Supplementation on Refeeding Syndrome for Patients Initiated on Parenteral Nutrition.The Journal of pharmacy technology : jPT : official publication of the Association of Pharmacy Technicians · 2025Article
- The Japanese Critical Care Nutrition Guideline 2024.Journal of intensive care · 2025Review
- Refeeding Syndrome.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOptimal refeeding protocols in older malnourished hospital patients remain unclear. We aimed to compare the effect of two different refeeding protocols; an assertive and a cautious protocol, on HGS, mortality and refeeding syndrome (RFS), in patients ≥ 65 years
methodsPatients admitted under medical or surgical category and at risk of RFS, were randomized to either an enteral nutrition (EN) refeeding protocol of 20 kcal/kg/day, reaching energy goals within 3 days (intervention group), or a protocol of 10 kcal/kg/day, reaching goals within 7 days (control group). Primary outcome was the difference in hand grip strength (HGS) at 3 months follow-up, in an intention to treat analysis. RFS (phosphate < 0.65 mmol/L) during the hospital stay and mortality rates at 3 months were secondary outcomes.
resultsA total of 85 patients were enrolled, with mean (SD) age of 79.8(7.4) and 54.1% female, 41 in the intervention group and 44 in the control group. HGS was similar at 3 months with mean change of 0.42 kg (95% CI - 2.52 to 3.36, p = 0.78). Serum phosphate < 0.65 mmol/L was seen in 17.1% in the intervention group and 9.3% in the control group, p = 0.29. There was no difference in mortality rates (39% vs 34.1%, p = 0.64). An indication of more respiratory distress was found in the intervention group, 53.6% vs 30.2%, p = 0.029.
conclusionA more assertive refeeding protocol providing 20 kcal/kg/day did not result in improved HGS measured 3 months after discharge compared with a cautious refeeding (10 kcal/kg/day) protocol. No difference in incidence of mortality or RFS was found.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Record 2017/FO148295, Registered: 21st of February, 2017.
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.