ArticleEuropean radiology2017
Adverse events during CT colonography for screening, diagnosis and preoperative staging of colorectal cancer: a Japanese national survey.
Article in European radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020.European radiology · 2021Guideline
- A novel volume-reduced CT colonography regimen using hypertonic laxative (polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid): randomized controlled trial.European radiology · 2019Trial
- CT colonography for assessing visceral obesity: clinical utility beyond colorectal screening.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- The potential of CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening in Japan.Japanese journal of radiology · 2025Review
- CT colonography: revisited after 30 years.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Acceptance and Preference of Computed Tomographic Colonography and Colonoscopy: Results of a Nationwide Multicenter Comparative Questionnaire Survey in Japan.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2024Article
- Virtual monoenergetic dual-layer dual-energy CT images in colorectal cancer: CT diagnosis could be improved?La Radiologia medica · 2023Article
- Recent trends in the prevalence and distribution of colonic diverticula in Japan evaluated using computed tomography colonography.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Improved Sensitivity and Reader Confidence in CT Colonography Using Dual-Layer Spectral CT: A Phantom Study.Radiology · 2020Article
- Assessment of the Clinical Usefulness of Preoperative Computed Tomography in Colorectal Cancer Patients Who Received Unplanned Reoperation.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2020Article
- [Colorectal cancer: role of imaging in screening].Der Radiologe · 2019Article
- Circulating Tumour Cells, Circulating Tumour DNA and Circulating Tumour miRNA in Blood Assays in the Different Steps of Colorectal Cancer Management, a Review of the Evidence in 2019.BioMed research international · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo retrospectively evaluate the frequencies and magnitudes of adverse events associated with computed tomographic colonography (CTC) for screening, diagnosis and preoperative staging of colorectal cancer.
methodsA Japanese national survey on CTC was administered by use of an online survey tool in the form of a questionnaire. The questions covered mortality, colorectal perforation, vasovagal reaction, total number of examinations, and examination procedures. The survey data was collated and raw frequencies were determined. Fisher's exact test was used to determine differences in event rates between groups.
resultsAt 431 institutions, 147,439 CTC examinations were performed. No deaths were reported. Colorectal perforations occurred in 0.014% (21/147,439): 0.003% (1/29,823) in screening, 0.014% (13/91,007) in diagnosis and 0.028% (7/25,330) in preoperative staging. The perforation risk was significantly lower in screening than in preoperative staging CTC procedures (p = 0.028). Eighty-one per cent of perforation cases (17/21) did not require emergency surgery. Vasovagal reaction occurred in 0.081% (120/147,439): 0.111% (33/29,823) in screening, 0.088% (80/91,007) in diagnosis and 0.028% (7/25,330) in preoperative staging.
conclusionsThe risk of colorectal perforation and vasovagal reaction in CTC is low. The frequency of colorectal perforation associated with CTC is least in the screening group and greatest in the preoperative-staging group. KEY POINTS: • The colorectal perforation rate during preoperative-staging CTC was 0.028 %. • The perforation rates for screening and diagnosis were 0.003 % and 0.014 %, respectively. • The perforation risk is significantly lower in screening than in preoperative staging. • Eighty-one per cent of perforation cases did not require emergency surgery. • Use of an automatic colon insufflator can reduce the risk of bowel perforation.
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.