ArticleEndoscopy international open2025
Differences in complications between colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Japan using large-scale health insurance claims data.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Analyses of colonoscopy (CS) and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) complications is crucial for further promoting use of endoscopy. This study analyzed rates of severe complications of CS compared with those of EGD using big data. Patients and methods: As a study population, we retrospectively used commercially anonymized health insurance claims data covering 3,050,954 patients from January 2010 to December 2020. Patients ≥ 50 years old who underwent CS or EGD without treatment were included in the study. The main outcomes were differences in rates of hemorrhage, perforation, and fatal events between EGD and CS, and risk factors of each complication comparing CS with EGD. Results: Among 290,470 CSs (male: 182,910, female: 107,560, median age [range]: 58 [50-75]) and 726,075 EGDs (male: 412,365, female: 313,710, 58 [50-75]), rates of hemorrhage, perforation, and fatal events for EGD and CS were 0.0069% vs. 0.0069% ( Conclusions: Compared with EGD, CS had a higher rate of perforation but not hemorrhage. Complication rates in CS did not differ by age.
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.