ReviewCurrent gastroenterology reports2022
Preparative Fasting Orders for Medical/Surgical Interventions and Imaging Studies: Time to Review and Revise!
Review in Current gastroenterology reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fasting before elective abdominal ultrasound: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Fasting before contrast-enhanced CT and the incidence of acute adverse reactions: a single-center randomized clinical trial.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of the reviewPreparative fasting orders arose out of a purported need to enhance imaging studies, reduce interference of food with intended medical/surgical interventions, and protect the patient from vomiting and aspiration pneumonia. This review discusses the frequency, appropriateness, and efficacy of fasting orders in meeting those needs and whether their use should be modified in the future. RECENT
findingsNil per os (NPO) orders are overused, as they are often inappropriate, typically excessive, and routinely create barriers which may increase risk for patients. Fasting orders are used more often for medical procedures than for surgical operations or imaging studies. One fourth of NPO orders are inappropriate, and the intended procedure or study is canceled 20% of the time usually for a change in plans or scheduling error and rarely because of patient eating. Nausea/vomiting associated with contrast media or imaging studies is rare, self-limited, and not linked to preparatory fluid or food ingestion. Prolonged fasting reduces patient cooperation and satisfaction, and may contribute to a higher rate of complications. Each institution should review and revise preparative fasting orders. Drinking of fluids should be allowed without restriction. Truncated periods of solid food restriction may be required due to technical reasons related to specific imaging studies, and for procedures or surgical operations which require sedation or general anesthesia. Inappropriate and prolonged fasting should be avoided, as they create barriers to adequate nutritional therapy and impose added risk with regard to patient outcomes.
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.