ArticleIntestinal Failure (New York, N.Y.)
Refeeding syndrome: Applicability of ASPEN criteria in patients with intestinal failure.
Article in Intestinal Failure (New York, N.Y.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Refeeding syndrome (RS) is defined as the reduction in serum levels of phosphorus, potassium, magnesium and/or thiamine, associated with the initiation of nutritional intake in patients with prolonged periods of low intake. In patients with intestinal failure (IF), risk factors for RS may be present. The aims of our study were to determine how many IF patients were at risk of RS, to determine how many of them developed RS and the accuracy of ASPEN risk criteria. Material and Methods: A retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study was conducted. From January 2020 to July 2024 adult patients with IF diagnosis who started parenteral nutrition were included. The variables analyzed were sex, age, percentage of weight loss, BMI, pathophysiological classification of the IF, and serum values of potassium, magnesium, and phosphorus. Risk was classified as none, significant or moderate and the development as none, mild, moderate or severe. Results: A total of 86 adult patients were included, 20.9 % had no risk criteria for RS, 2.3 % had moderate risk, and 76.7 % had significant risk. Fifty percent of patients with no risk criteria and 54.4 % of patients who did have risk criteria developed RS. In 63.0 % IF patients it was mild, 26.1 % moderate and severe in 10.9 %. According to the pathophysiological classification of IF, there were no differences between the groups (p > 0.9). Conclusion: In this cohort of IF patients, 53.5 % developed RS. ASPEN criteria did not predict the development of 50 %. Sensitivity was 0.8 and specificity 0.23.
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.