Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39375173›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open gastroenterology2024

Adverse events after colonoscopy in a randomised colorectal cancer screening trial.

Øyvind Bakken Rognstad, Edoardo Botteri, Geir Hoff, Michael Bretthauer, Elisabeth Gulichsen, Svein Oskar Frigstad, Øyvind Holme, Kristin Ranheim Randel

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01538550 (Colorectal Cancer Screening in Norway), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT01538550 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

Colorectal Cancer Screening in Norway: Pilot Study of a National Screening Programme With Randomised Comparison of Different Screening Strategies to Provide the Best Possible Service to the Population

TypeinterventionalSponsorNorwegian Institute of Public HealthRan2012 to 2034Enrolled140,000ConditionsColorectal Cancer, Colorectal AdenomasArmsFlexible sigmoidoscopy, iFOBT
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Øyvind Bakken RognstadCancer Registry of Norway, Section for Colorectal Cancer Screening, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0009-0008-8498-5084
Edoardo BotteriCancer Registry of Norway, Section for Colorectal Cancer Screening, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Geir HoffCancer Registry of Norway, Section for Colorectal Cancer Screening, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Michael BretthauerClinical Effectiveness Research Group, Department of Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Elisabeth GulichsenDepartment of Medicine, Sykehuset Østfold HF, Moss, Norway.
Svein Oskar FrigstadDepartment of Medicine, Vestre Viken Hospital Trust, Bærum, Norway.
Øyvind HolmeClinical Effectiveness Research Group, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Kristin Ranheim RandelCancer Registry of Norway, Section for Colorectal Cancer Screening, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway kran@kreftregisteret.no.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveColonoscopy-related adverse events increase the burden of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. This cross-sectional study evaluates adverse events during and after colonoscopy in a large, randomised CRC screening trial in Norway comparing sigmoidoscopy to immunochemical testing for faecal blood.

methodsWe included all individuals who underwent colonoscopy at two screening centres between 2012 and 2020. From medical records, we retrieved data on adverse events during and within 30 days after colonoscopy and classified them according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy lexicon for endoscopic adverse events. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to identify risk factors for adverse events.

resultsOf the 10 244 included individuals, 242 (2.4%) had at least one adverse event that was possibly, probably, or definitively related to the colonoscopy. 188 (1.8%) had mild adverse events, 50 (0.49%) had moderate, 3 (0.03%) had severe, and 1 had a fatal adverse event. The most frequent adverse events were lower gastrointestinal bleeding (0.86%), abdominal pain (0.48%), vasovagal reaction (0.39%), postpolypectomy syndrome (0.20%), and perforation (0.08%). 23 (0.22%) individuals had non-gastrointestinal adverse events. Risk factors associated with adverse events were older age, female sex, screening centre, anticoagulant therapy, number of polypectomies, size of lesion removed, presence of proximal lesion, and adenocarcinoma. Adverse event rates per endoscopist ranged from 0% to 4.9%.

conclusionAdverse events after colonoscopy of screening positives occurred in about 2 out of 100 procedures. Three-quarters of events were mild. Awareness of risk factors may help endoscopists to mitigate the risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01538550.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerAbdominal PainAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGastrointestinal HemorrhageHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwayOccult BloodRisk FactorsSigmoidoscopyColonoscopyColorectal cancer screeningEpidemiology

Identifiers

PMID39375173
PMCPMC11459295

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.