Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases and registers only.
Tables
Study ID Year Study Type Mean Age/Age Minimum Type of Colonoscopy Percent Polypectomy (If Reported) Perforations /10,000 Colonoscopies Severe Bleeding/10,000 Colonoscopies Cardiovascular Adverse Events/10,000 Colonoscopies Bokemeyer44 2009 Prospective >55 Screening Not reported 2.04 16.42 12.0 Bretthauer23 2016 Retrospective 60 Screening 48.10% 0.80 14.32 Not reported Causado-Calo26 2020 Retrospective >50 Screening Not reported 5.0 40.0 70.0 Rabeneck25 2008 Retrospective 60.9 Screening 24% 5.56 14.11 Not reported Zwink29 2017 Prospective 61 Screening 12% 19.04 89.49 Not reported Zafar26 2014 Retrospective 76.7 Screening Not reported 12.13 165.61 113.0 Bokemeyer Bretthauer Causada-Calo Rabeneck Zwink Zafar Were there harms PRE-DEFINED using standardized or precise definitions? Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Were SERIOUS events precisely defined? Yes No No No Yes No Were SEVERE events precisely defined? Yes No No No No No Were the number of DEATHS in each study group specified OR were the reason(s) for not specifying them given? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Was the mode of harms collection specified as ACTIVE? No No No No Yes No Was the mode of harms collection specified as PASSIVE? Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Did the study specify WHO collected the harms? No No Yes No Yes No Did the study specify the TRAINING or BACKGROUND of who ascertained the harms? No No No No No No Did the study specify the TIMING and FREQUENCY of collection of the harms? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Did the author(s) use STANDARD scale(s) or checklist(s) for harms collection? Yes No Yes Yes No No Did the authors specify if the harms reported encompass ALL the events collected or a selected SAMPLE? All All All All All All Was the NUMBER of participants that withdrew or were lost to follow-up specified for each study group? N/A Yes N/A N/A Yes N/A Was the TOTAL NUMBER of participants affected by harms specified for each study arm? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Did the author(s) specify the NUMBER for each TYPE of harmful event for each study group? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Did the author(s) specify the type of analyses undertaken for harms data? No No Yes Yes Yes Yes - Table 3.
McMaster Tool for Assessing Quality of Harms Assessment and Reporting in Study Reports (McHarm)
1. Were the harms PRE-DEFINED using standardized or precise definitions? 2. Were SERIOUS events precisely defined? 3. Were SEVERE events precisely defined? 4. Were the number of DEATHS in each study group specified OR were the reason(s) for not specifying them given? 5. Was the mode of harms collection specified as ACTIVE? 6. Was the mode of harms collection specified as PASSIVE? 7. Did the study specify WHO collected the harms? 8. Did the study specify the TRAINING or BACKGROUND of who ascertained the harms? 9. Did the study specify the TIMING and FREQUENCY of collection of the harms? 10. Did the author(s) use STANDARD scale(s) or checklist(s) for harms collection? 11. Did the authors specify if the harms reported encompass ALL the events collected or a selected SAMPLE? 12. Was the NUMBER of participants that withdrew or were lost to follow-up specified for each study group? 13. Was the TOTAL NUMBER of participants affected by harms specified for each study arm? 14. Did the author(s) specify the NUMBER for each TYPE of harmful event for each study group? 15. Did the author(s) specify the type of analyses undertaken for harms data? Source: Santaguida PL, Raina P. The development of the McHarm quality assessment scale for adverse events: Delphi consensus on important criteria for evaluating harms. Available at: http://hiru.mcmaster.ca/epc/mcharm.pdf. Accessed May 14, 2008.
