Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27296945›Full record

SynthesisThe American journal of gastroenterology2016

Post-Colonoscopy Complications: A Systematic Review, Time Trends, and Meta-Analysis of Population-Based Studies.

Ankie Reumkens, Eveline J A Rondagh, C Minke Bakker, Bjorn Winkens, Ad A M Masclee, Silvia Sanduleanu

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 146 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
146citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05029934 naterminatednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Efficacy of EndoClot™ Spraying After Endoscopic Resection of Large Colorectal Polyps: A Randomized Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-EppendorfRan2021 to 2023Enrolled96ConditionsWound Endoscopical, Colon, After Polyp Resection, ColonArmsuse of EndoClot
NCT06666556 phase4completednot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Bowel Preparation in Colonoscopy: Lactulose vs Polyethyleneglycol, Randomized Double-blind Comparative Clinical Trial, Multicenter Study.

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital Civil de GuadalajaraRan2024 to 2025Enrolled449ConditionsColorectal Cancer ScreeningArmsBowel preparation before colonoscopy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

146 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Quality indicators for colonoscopy.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024
    Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Electrolyte disturbances after bowel preparation for colonoscopy: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2022
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Guideline
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. Article

86 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ankie ReumkensDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Eveline J A RondaghDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
C Minke BakkerDepartment of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Bjorn WinkensDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Ad A M MascleeDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Silvia SanduleanuDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMany studies around the world addressed the post-colonoscopy complications, but their pooled prevalence and time trends are unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies to examine the pooled prevalence of post-colonoscopy complications ("perforation", "bleeding", and "mortality"), stratified by colonoscopy indication. Temporal variability in the complication rate was assessed.

methodsWe queried Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane library for population-based studies examining post-colonoscopy complications (within 30 days), performed from 2001 to 2015 and published by 1 December 2015. We determined pooled prevalence of perforations, post-colonoscopy bleeding, post-polypectomy bleeding, and mortality.

resultsWe retrieved 1,074 studies, of which 21 met the inclusion criteria. Overall, pooled prevalences for perforation, post-colonoscopy bleeding, and mortality were 0.5/1,000 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-0.7), 2.6/1,000 (95% CI 1.7-3.7), and 2.9/100,000 (95% CI 1.1-5.5) colonoscopies. Colonoscopy with polypectomy was associated with a perforation rate of 0.8/1,000 (95% CI 0.6-1.0) and a post-polypectomy bleeding rate of 9.8/1,000 (95% CI 7.7-12.1). Complication rate was lower for screening/surveillance than for diagnostic examinations. Time-trend analysis showed that post-colonoscopy bleeding declined from 6.4 to 1.0/1,000 colonoscopies, whereas the perforation and mortality rates remained stable from 2001 to 2015. Overall, considerable heterogeneity was observed in most of the analyses.

conclusionsWorldwide, the post-colonoscopy complication rate remained stable or even declined over the past 15 years. The findings of this meta-analysis encourage continued efforts to achieve and maintain safety targets in colonoscopy practice.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyColonic PolypsColorectal NeoplasmsGastrointestinal HemorrhageHumansIntestinal PerforationMortalityPostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative HemorrhagePrevalenceTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID27296945

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.