ReviewPloS one2025
Physical harms in colorectal cancer screening: An overview of the reporting in systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials.
Review in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the comprehensiveness of the reporting of physical harms in colorectal cancer screening programmes (CRCSPs) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs).
designWe conducted an overview of reviews, comparing the comprehensiveness of reporting of harms in SRs and RCTs with a recent SR conducted according to the PRISMA-harms extension, identifying 17 types of physical harm potentially resulting from CRCSPs.
main outcome measuresProportion of the 17 types of physical harm reported per study (study coverage), across studies (outcome coverage) and the level of harm severity reported in RCTs and SRs.
resultsWe identified 24 RCTs and 16 SRs investigating physical harms related to CRCSPs. The median study coverage was 4 and 3 out of the 17 types of harm, varying from 5.9-47.1% and 5.9-52.9% types of physical harm reported in RCTs and SRs, respectively. The median outcome coverage was 4 and 3 across RCTs and SRs, varying from 0-66.7% and 0-87.5% in RCTs and SRs, respectively. Of note, 4 types of harm were not reported in any of the identified SRs. Inconsistent definitions of harm in RCTs and SRs made it difficult to assess which levels of severity of harm that were reported in studies. DISCUSSION: Poor reporting of harms in RCTs was compounded in SRs. We found poor study and outcome coverage and considerable inconsistencies concerning how physical harms were defined in RCTs and SRs. The inconsistent reporting of harms may result in an underestimation of their magnitude in relation to CRCSPs, raising concerns about our current capacity to evaluate the safety of these programmes. Adequate use of existing guidelines for harm reporting in RCTs and SRs and international consensus on how best to define and measure harms in studies of CRCSPs is warranted.
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.