↓ Skip to main content

Is fasting safe? A chart review of adverse events during medically supervised, water-only fasting

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#36 of 3,990)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
23 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
34 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
2 Redditors
video
8 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
210 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Is fasting safe? A chart review of adverse events during medically supervised, water-only fasting
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12906-018-2136-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

John S. Finnell, Bradley C. Saul, Alan C. Goldhamer, Toshia R. Myers

Abstract

Evidence suggests that fasting, during which only water is consumed, results in potentially health promoting physiological effects. However, peer-reviewed research assessing the safety of water-only fasting is lacking. To address this, we conducted a chart review to describe adverse events (AEs) that occurred during medically supervised, water-only fasting. Electronic charts from patient visits to a residential medical facility from 2006 to 2011 were reviewed. Patients who were at least 21 years of age and water-only fasted for ≥2 consecutive days with a refeeding period equal to half of the fast length were included. Out of 2539 charts, 768 visits met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. AEs were abstracted from chart notes and classified according to CTCAE (v4.03) and MedDRA (v12.1) terminology. Descriptive analysis of AEs is reported. During the protocol period, the highest grade AE (HGAE) in 555 visits was a grade 2 event or lower, in 212 visits it was a grade 3 event, in 1 visit it was a grade 4 event, and there were no grade 5 events. There were 2 (0.002%) visits with a serious adverse event (SAE). The majority of AEs identified were mild (n = 4490, 75%) in nature and known reactions to fasting. To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive analysis of AEs experienced during medically supervised, water-only fasting conducted to date. Overall, our data indicate that the majority of AEs experienced were mild to moderate and known reactions to fasting. This suggests that the protocol used in this study can be safely implemented in a medical setting with minimal risk of a SAE.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 210 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 210 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 34 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 10%
Other 18 9%
Student > Master 17 8%
Other 35 17%
Unknown 63 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 8%
Sports and Recreations 6 3%
Psychology 5 2%
Other 31 15%
Unknown 71 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 204. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 April 2024.
All research outputs
#196,471
of 25,757,133 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#36
of 3,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,496
of 345,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#2
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,757,133 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,990 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,472 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.