ReviewJournal of nutrition and metabolism2026
Meta-Analysis of Refeeding Syndrome in Predicting the Risk of Occurrence in Critically Ill Patients.
Review in Journal of nutrition and metabolism, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Meta-Analysis of Refeeding Syndrome in Predicting the Risk of Occurrence in Critically Ill Patients.Journal of nutrition and metabolism · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) have a high risk of refeeding syndrome (RFS). Identifying RFS in its early stages is often challenging, making preventive interventions for high-risk patients difficult. The aim of this review is to identify risk factors for RFS in ICU patients receiving nutritional support. Study Design: We systematically searched CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science up to November 2024 for cohort/case-control studies assessing RFS risk factors in adults (≥ 18 years). Risk of bias was evaluated using Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I). Data were analyzed using RevMan 5.4. Results: Eighteen articles were included, comprising 3360 cases. Baseline serum phosphate [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.10, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) (-0.19∼-0.01)], magnesium [WMD = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.04-0.02)], potassium [WMD = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.06-0.02)], albumin [WMD = -2.08, 95% CI (-3.81, -0.36)], prealbumin [(WMD = -15.37, 95% CI (-33.00-2.27)], daily protein intake [WMD = 0.23, 95% CI (0.17-0.28)], APACHE II score [WMD = 2.65, 95% CI (1.22-4.08)], NRS2002 score [WMD = 0.68, 95% CI (-0.41-1.77)], SOFA score [WMD = 1.87, 95% CI (1.50-2.25)], age [WMD = 8.67, 95% CI (7.14-10.19)], daily calorie intake [odds ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% CI (0.25, 0.49)], feeding within 48 h of ICU admission [OR = 1.98, 95% CI (1.56, 2.51)], and a history of diabetes [OR = 3.84, 95% CI (1.17, 12.59)] are the risk factors for meta-analysis in this article. The ROBINS-I assessment showed moderate-to-severe bias (10 severe, 8 moderate). Conclusion: The meta-analysis identified serum levels of phosphorus and albumin; daily protein and calorie intake; APACHE II score; SOFA score; age; initiation of feeding within 48 h of ICU admission; and a history of diabetes as significant predictors of RFS development in critically ill patients. Serum levels of magnesium, potassium, and prealbumin and the NRS2002 score were not associated with RFS in these patients.
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.