Cited by 706Clinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyDietetics, Nutrition, and EducationEnhanced Recovery After Surgery

Refeeding syndrome: what it is, and how to prevent and treat it

Open access
Mehanna, Hisham M, Moledina, Jamil, Travis, Jane·2008·BMJ

Abstract

Refeeding syndrome is a well described but often forgotten condition. No randomised controlled trials of treatment have been published, although there are guidelines that use best available evidence for managing the condition. In 2006 a guideline was published by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in England and Wales. Yet because clinicians are often not aware of the problem, refeeding syndrome still occurs.1 This review aims to raise awareness of refeeding syndrome and discuss prevention and treatment. The available literature mostly comprises weaker (level 3 and 4) evidence, including cohort studies, case series, and consensus expert opinion.2 Our article also draws attention to the NICE guidelines on nutritional support in adults, with particular reference to the new recommendations for best practice in refeeding syndrome.3 These recommendations differ in parts from—and we believe improve on—previous guidelines, such as those of the Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Group of the British Dietetic Association (box 1).4 #### Box 1 Why use the NICE guidelines on refeeding syndrome? Refeeding syndrome can be defined as the potentially fatal shifts in fluids and electrolytes that may occur in malnourished patients receiving artificial refeeding (whether enterally or parenterally5). These shifts result …

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.a301

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Marked glycemic variability (coefficient of variation > 20%) is associated with increased mortality.

    “A number of observational studies confirmed a strong association between severe hyperglycemia (> 180 mg/dl, 10 mmol/l) (355), marked glycemic variability (coefficient of variation > 20%) (356, 357), mild hypoglycemia (< 70 mg/dl, 3.9 mmol/l) (358) and increased mortality.”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mehanna, H. M., Moledina, J., & Travis, J.
Affiliations
  • Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University Hospital Coventry (GB)
Corresponding author
Mehanna, Hisham M
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2008-06-26
Volume
336
Issue
7659
Pages
1495-1498
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2149423094
Cited by
706
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 57 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 27
FWCI
23.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Dietetics, Nutrition, and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Enhanced Recovery After Surgery
Keywords
refeeding syndrome, malnutrition, nutritional support, electrolyte imbalance, fluid shifts, prevention, treatment, NICE guidelines, clinical awareness, parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition
MeSH terms
Fasting, Humans, Syndrome, Water-Electrolyte Imbalance, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Nutritional Support, Malnutrition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review