The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Post-Colonoscopy Complications: A Systematic Review, Time Trends, and Meta-Analysis of Population-Based Studies
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Many studies around the world addressed the post-colonoscopy complications, but their pooled prevalence and time trends are unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies to examine the pooled prevalence of post-colonoscopy complications ("perforation", "bleeding", and "mortality"), stratified by colonoscopy indication. Temporal variability in the complication rate was assessed. METHODS: We queried Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane library for population-based studies examining post-colonoscopy complications (within 30 days), performed from 2001 to 2015 and published by 1 December 2015. We determined pooled prevalence of perforations, post-colonoscopy bleeding, post-polypectomy bleeding, and mortality. RESULTS: We retrieved 1,074 studies, of which 21 met the inclusion criteria. Overall, pooled prevalences for perforation, post-colonoscopy bleeding, and mortality were 0.5/1,000 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-0.7), 2.6/1,000 (95% CI 1.7-3.7), and 2.9/100,000 (95% CI 1.1-5.5) colonoscopies. Colonoscopy with polypectomy was associated with a perforation rate of 0.8/1,000 (95% CI 0.6-1.0) and a post-polypectomy bleeding rate of 9.8/1,000 (95% CI 7.7-12.1). Complication rate was lower for screening/surveillance than for diagnostic examinations. Time-trend analysis showed that post-colonoscopy bleeding declined from 6.4 to 1.0/1,000 colonoscopies, whereas the perforation and mortality rates remained stable from 2001 to 2015. Overall, considerable heterogeneity was observed in most of the analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Worldwide, the post-colonoscopy complication rate remained stable or even declined over the past 15 years. The findings of this meta-analysis encourage continued efforts to achieve and maintain safety targets in colonoscopy practice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01 · Cited by 86,835
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · International Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 · Cited by 12,156
Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Ward, E., Hao, Y., Xu, J., Murray, T., & Thun, M. J. (2008) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/ca.2007.0010 · Cited by 10,188
Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy
Rex, D. K., Schoenfeld, P. S., Cohen, J., Pike, I. M., Adler, D. G., Fennerty, B. M., Lieb, J. G., Park, W. G., Rizk, M. K., Sawhney, M. S., et al. (2015) · American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1038/ajg.2014.385 · Cited by 1,401
Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy
Rex, D. K., Petrini, J. L., Baron, T. H., Chak, A., Cohen, J., Deal, S. E., Hoffman, B., Jacobson, B. C., Mergener, K., Petersen, B. T., et al. (2006) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00673.x · Cited by 845
Whitlock, E. P., Lin, J. S., Liles, E., Beil, T. L., & Fu, R. (2008) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-149-9-200811040-00245 · Cited by 845
Incomplete Polyp Resection During Colonoscopy—Results of the Complete Adenoma Resection (CARE) Study
Pohl, H., Srivastava, A., Bensen, S. P., Anderson, P., Rothstein, R. I., Gordon, S. R., Levy, L. C., Toor, A., Mackenzie, T. A., Rosch, T., et al. (2013) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2012.09.043 · Cited by 757
Neyeloff, J. L., Fuchs, S. C., & Moreira, L. B. (2012) · BMC Research Notes · doi:10.1186/1756-0500-5-52 · Cited by 727
Bowles, C. J. A., Leicester, R., Romaya, C., Swarbrick, E., Williams, C. B., & Epstein, O. (2004) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2003.016436 · Cited by 617
Cited by
Peery, A. F., Crockett, S. D., Murphy, C. C., Lund, J. L., Dellon, E. S., Williams, J. L., Jensen, E. T., Shaheen, N. J., Barritt, A. S., Lieber, S. R., et al. (2019) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.08.063 · Cited by 1,619
ACG Clinical Guidelines: Colorectal Cancer Screening 2021
Shaukat, A., Kahi, C. J., Burke, C. A., Rabeneck, L., Sauer, B. G., & Rex, D. K. (2021) · American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000001122 · Cited by 853
Kaminski, M. F., Thomas‐Gibson, S., Bugajski, M., Bretthauer, M., Rees, C. J., Dekker, E., Hoff, G., Jover, R., Suchanek, S., Ferlitsch, M., et al. (2017) · United European Gastroenterology Journal · doi:10.1177/2050640617700014 · Cited by 346
Atkin, W., Cross, A. J., Kralj-Hans, I., MacRae, E., Piggott, C., Pearson, S., Wooldrage, K., Brown, J., Lucas, F., Prendergast, A., et al. (2019) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta23010 · Cited by 129
Metadata
- Authors
- Reumkens, A., Rondagh, E. J. A., Bakker, M. C., Winkens, B., Masclee, A. A. M., & Sanduleanu, S.
- Venue
- American Journal of Gastroenterology
- Published
- 2016-08
- Volume
- 111
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1092-1101
- ISSN
- 0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2427807572
- Cited by
- 373
- References
- 39
- FWCI
- 4.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Post-Colonoscopy Complications: A Systematic Review, Time Trends, and Meta-Analysis of Population-Based Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/ajg.2016.234
- The paper
- Reumkens, A., Rondagh, E. J. A., Bakker, M. C., Winkens, B., Masclee, A. A. M., & Sanduleanu, S. (2016). Post-Colonoscopy Complications: A Systematic Review, Time Trends, and Meta-Analysis of Population-Based Studies. American Journal of Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2016.234
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
