IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0295900.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deaths and cardiopulmonary events following colorectal cancer screening—A systematic review with meta-analyses

Author

Listed:
  • Frederik Handberg Juul Martiny
  • Anne Katrine Lykke Bie
  • Christian Patrick Jauernik
  • Or Joseph Rahbek
  • Sigrid Brisson Nielsen
  • Emma Grundtvig Gram
  • Isabella Kindt
  • Volkert Siersma
  • Christine Winther Bang
  • John Brandt Brodersen

Abstract

Background: Colorectal cancer screening programmes (CRCSPs) are implemented worldwide despite recent evidence indicating more physical harm occurring during CRCSPs than previously thought. Therefore, we aimed to review the evidence on physical harms associated with endoscopic diagnostic procedures during CRCSPs and, when possible, to quantify the risk of the most serious types of physical harm during CRCSPs, i.e. deaths and cardiopulmonary events (CPEs). Methods: Systematic review with descriptive statistics and random-effects meta-analyses of studies investigating physical harms following CRCSPs. We conducted a systematic search in the literature and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence. Results: We included 134 studies for review, reporting findings from 151 unique populations when accounting for multiple screening interventions per study. Physical harm can be categorized into 17 types of harm. The evidence was very heterogeneous with inadequate measurement and reporting of harms. The risk of bias was serious or critical in 95% of assessments of deaths and CPEs, and the certainty of the evidence was very low in all analyses. The risk of death was assessed for 57 populations with large variation across studies. Meta-analyses indicated that 3 to 23 deaths occur during CRCSPs per 100,000 people screened. Cardiopulmonary events were assessed for 55 populations. Despite our efforts to subcategorize CPEs into 17 distinct subtypes, 41% of CPE assessments were too poorly measured or reported to allow quantification. We found a tendency towards lower estimates of deaths and CPEs in studies with a critical risk of bias. Discussion: Deaths and CPEs during CRCSPs are rare, yet they do occur during CRCSPs. We believe that our findings are conservative due to the heterogeneity and low quality of the evidence. A standardized system for the measurement and reporting of the harms of screening is warranted. Trial registration: PROSPERO Registration number CRD42017058844.

Suggested Citation

  • Frederik Handberg Juul Martiny & Anne Katrine Lykke Bie & Christian Patrick Jauernik & Or Joseph Rahbek & Sigrid Brisson Nielsen & Emma Grundtvig Gram & Isabella Kindt & Volkert Siersma & Christine Wi, 2024. "Deaths and cardiopulmonary events following colorectal cancer screening—A systematic review with meta-analyses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(3), pages 1-23, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0295900
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295900
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0295900
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0295900&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0295900?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0295900. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.