Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
LetterCorrespondence

Response: Re: An Estimate of Severe Harms Due to Screening Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review

Alison N. Huffstetler, Joseph Fraiman, Shannon Brownlee and Kenneth W. Lin
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine November 2023, 36 (6) 1093; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2023.230358R0
Alison N. Huffstetler
From the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care, Washington, DC (ANH); Thibodaux Regional Medical Center, Department of Emergency Medicine, Thibodaux, LA (JF); Lown Institute Boston, MA (SB); and Lancaster General Hospital Family    Medicine Residency, Lancaster, PA (KWL)
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Joseph Fraiman
From the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care, Washington, DC (ANH); Thibodaux Regional Medical Center, Department of Emergency Medicine, Thibodaux, LA (JF); Lown Institute Boston, MA (SB); and Lancaster General Hospital Family    Medicine Residency, Lancaster, PA (KWL)
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shannon Brownlee
From the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care, Washington, DC (ANH); Thibodaux Regional Medical Center, Department of Emergency Medicine, Thibodaux, LA (JF); Lown Institute Boston, MA (SB); and Lancaster General Hospital Family    Medicine Residency, Lancaster, PA (KWL)
MSc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kenneth W. Lin
From the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care, Washington, DC (ANH); Thibodaux Regional Medical Center, Department of Emergency Medicine, Thibodaux, LA (JF); Lown Institute Boston, MA (SB); and Lancaster General Hospital Family    Medicine Residency, Lancaster, PA (KWL)
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

To the Editor: Swartz and his colleagues bring concerns regarding methods of our analysis and methodologies.1 In our systematic review of the literature pertaining to the harms of screening colonoscopy, we judged that a meta-analysis was not statistically sound due to the very high heterogeneity of study results (I2 of 97%). Although some authors may choose to perform and publish meta-analysis results with such substantial heterogeneity, we offered a credible range as a more statistically sound method for providing insight into the range of harms caused by screening colonoscopy.2

In regard to the Bretthauer study, this was misclassified as retrospective when it should be correctly identified as a prospective RCT. Swartz states that our analysis does not include why this study was not credible for the range used in our analysis. We do, in fact, specifically address the credibility and quality of reporting in our methods and in Table 2. The Bretthauer study was not included as the low end for the credible range for our analysis based on the McMaster tool for assessing quality of harms assessment and reporting in study reports. Designed primarily to evaluate the benefits of screening colonoscopy, this study failed to predefine harms, without annotation of serious or severe harms, and harms data were collected passively, rather than actively monitoring patients for a period of time after screening colonoscopy.

Transition to cold snare polypectomy potentially offers great benefit for individuals undergoing polypectomy and reduces the risk of bleeding during screening colonoscopy. The time frame for inclusion of studies in our systematic review mirrors that of recommendation making bodies.3 As guideline organizations update their search parameters, systematic reviews can and should follow. However, the methodology and study eligibility parameters of our review is consistent with that of other researchers.4

We followed established standards of research using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, review registration, and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta - analyses (PRISMA).5 The COLONPREV trial failed to meet the prespecified inclusion criteria; although their study protocol does include complications of bleeding and perforation, it does not state that their protocol followed patients for 30 days after their procedure.6 The SCREESCO findings are preliminary and will be valuable to the literature. Although it did exclude individuals with a history of colorectal or anal cancer, this study would have similarly not met our inclusion criteria as we only included studies that specifically excluded all high-risk populations (including those with inflammatory bowel disease or similar conditions).7

We disagree that our systematic review vastly overestimates the rate of serious complications of screening colonoscopies. Although improving technologies may reduce the likelihood of procedure-related harms, our systematic review revealed that there has been incomplete reporting of patient harms, with little active monitoring and a heavy reliance on administrative data. Patients who are eligible for screening colonoscopy based on national guidelines should actively engage in shared-decision making with clinicians with adequate knowledge about the risks and benefits of various colorectal cancer screening options. Having accurate estimates of the risks of screening colonoscopy is necessary to inform patient decision making and should be valued by professionals recommending screening.

Notes

  • To see this article online, please go to: http://jabfm.org/content/36/6/1096.full.

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Swartz AW,
    2. Klippenstein K,
    3. Lavender D
    . Re: An estimate of severe harms due to screening colonoscopy: a systematic review [letter to the editor]. J Am Board Fam Med 2023;36:xxx.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    1. Huffstetler AN,
    2. Fraiman J,
    3. Brownlee S,
    4. Stoto MA,
    5. Lin KW
    . An estimate of severe harms due to screening colonoscopy: a systematic review. J Am Board Fam Med 2023;36:493–500.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Lin JS,
    2. Perdue LA,
    3. Henrikson NB,
    4. et al
    . Screening for colorectal cancer: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2021;325:1978–98.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Kothari ST,
    2. Huang RJ,
    3. Shaukat A,
    4. et al
    . ASGE review of adverse events in colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2019;90:863–76.e33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Page MJ,
    2. et al
    . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Quintero E,
    2. Castells A,
    3. Bujanda L,
    4. et al
    . Colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2012;366:697–706.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Forsberg A,
    2. Westerberg M,
    3. Metcalfe C,
    4. et al
    . Once-only colonoscopy or two rounds of faecal immunochemical testing 2 years apart for colorectal cancer screening (SCREESCO): preliminary report of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;7:513–21.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 36 (6)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 36, Issue 6
November-December 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Response: Re: An Estimate of Severe Harms Due to Screening Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 1 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Response: Re: An Estimate of Severe Harms Due to Screening Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review
Alison N. Huffstetler, Joseph Fraiman, Shannon Brownlee, Kenneth W. Lin
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Nov 2023, 36 (6) 1093; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2023.230358R0

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Response: Re: An Estimate of Severe Harms Due to Screening Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review
Alison N. Huffstetler, Joseph Fraiman, Shannon Brownlee, Kenneth W. Lin
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Nov 2023, 36 (6) 1093; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2023.230358R0
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Notes
    • References
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Hepatitis C Treatment Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Among Primary Care Providers—Los Angeles County, 2023
  • Re: Factors Influencing Patient Confidence in Screening Mammography
  • Re: Physician and Advanced Practice Clinician Burnout in Rural and Urban Settings
Show more Correspondence

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire