127 Physical harm resulting from colorectal cancer screening – a systematic review

F. Martiny, Anne Katrine Lykke Bie, C. Jauernik, O. Rahbek, S. Nielsen, J. Brodersen
{"title":"127 Physical harm resulting from colorectal cancer screening – a systematic review","authors":"F. Martiny, Anne Katrine Lykke Bie, C. Jauernik, O. Rahbek, S. Nielsen, J. Brodersen","doi":"10.1136/BMJEBM-2018-111070.127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives Screening for cancer intends to provide benefit but also entails an unintended risk of causing harm. Many types of harm might occur during the screening cascade, including the risk of overdiagnosis due to both overdetection and overdefinition. Regardless of the diagnostic outcome, all screening participants are at risk of enduring physical harms due to screening. Harms of screening are often underreported and asymmetrically presented compared to the benefits of screening. In addition, the definition, measurement and reporting of harms is heterogeneous and of poor quality in clinical studies. These methodological issues have major consequences when systematic reviews do not focus sufficiently on harm assessment methods in studies. As former reviews of colorectal cancer screening have not addressed the above detailed issues, this systematic reviews aims to assess the evidence regarding physical harms of colorectal cancer screening in line with recent methodological recommendations in the PRISMA harms extension. Method Conduct and reporting follows recommendations from the PRISMA harms extension and the Cochrane Handbook. The study protocol was published on PROSPERO prior to data extraction to ensure transparency. Databases were searched in April 2017 and included Pubmed, Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PsycInfo and the Cochrane library. There were no restrictions concerning study design, language or date of publication. All types of clinical studies were included if they provided data on physical harms due to screening of asymptomatic individuals in average risk of colorectal cancer by any combination of fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy and/or colonoscopy. Using an extended version of the newly published risk of bias tool for non-randomized studies, ROBINS-I by the Cochrane Collaboration, we appraised the risk of bias of the included studies. The overall quality of the evidence will be evaluated using the GRADE criteria. The study protocol is available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=58844 Results Preliminary results and methodological issues identified in studies included for review will be presented at the conference.","PeriodicalId":298595,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidenced-Based Medicine","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Evidenced-Based Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJEBM-2018-111070.127","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives Screening for cancer intends to provide benefit but also entails an unintended risk of causing harm. Many types of harm might occur during the screening cascade, including the risk of overdiagnosis due to both overdetection and overdefinition. Regardless of the diagnostic outcome, all screening participants are at risk of enduring physical harms due to screening. Harms of screening are often underreported and asymmetrically presented compared to the benefits of screening. In addition, the definition, measurement and reporting of harms is heterogeneous and of poor quality in clinical studies. These methodological issues have major consequences when systematic reviews do not focus sufficiently on harm assessment methods in studies. As former reviews of colorectal cancer screening have not addressed the above detailed issues, this systematic reviews aims to assess the evidence regarding physical harms of colorectal cancer screening in line with recent methodological recommendations in the PRISMA harms extension. Method Conduct and reporting follows recommendations from the PRISMA harms extension and the Cochrane Handbook. The study protocol was published on PROSPERO prior to data extraction to ensure transparency. Databases were searched in April 2017 and included Pubmed, Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PsycInfo and the Cochrane library. There were no restrictions concerning study design, language or date of publication. All types of clinical studies were included if they provided data on physical harms due to screening of asymptomatic individuals in average risk of colorectal cancer by any combination of fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy and/or colonoscopy. Using an extended version of the newly published risk of bias tool for non-randomized studies, ROBINS-I by the Cochrane Collaboration, we appraised the risk of bias of the included studies. The overall quality of the evidence will be evaluated using the GRADE criteria. The study protocol is available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=58844 Results Preliminary results and methodological issues identified in studies included for review will be presented at the conference.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
127结直肠癌筛查对身体的伤害——一项系统综述
癌症筛查的目的是提供益处,但也带来了造成伤害的意外风险。在筛查级联过程中可能发生许多类型的危害,包括由于过度检测和过度定义而导致的过度诊断风险。无论诊断结果如何,所有筛查参与者都有因筛查而遭受身体伤害的风险。与筛查的益处相比,筛查的危害往往被低估和不对称地呈现。此外,在临床研究中,危害的定义、测量和报告是异质的,质量很差。当系统评价没有充分关注研究中的危害评估方法时,这些方法学问题会产生重大后果。由于以前对结直肠癌筛查的综述没有解决上述详细问题,本系统综述的目的是根据PRISMA危害扩展中最近的方法学建议,评估结直肠癌筛查对身体危害的证据。方法遵循PRISMA危害扩展和Cochrane手册的建议进行和报告。研究方案在数据提取之前已在PROSPERO上公布,以确保透明度。检索数据库于2017年4月,包括Pubmed, Medline, Embase, Cinahl, PsycInfo和Cochrane图书馆。没有关于研究设计、语言或出版日期的限制。所有类型的临床研究都被纳入,如果它们提供了通过粪便潜血检查、乙状结肠镜检查和/或结肠镜检查的任何组合对无症状个体进行结肠直肠癌平均风险筛查所造成的身体伤害的数据。我们使用Cochrane Collaboration新发布的非随机研究偏倚风险工具ROBINS-I的扩展版本,对纳入研究的偏倚风险进行了评估。证据的整体质量将使用GRADE标准进行评估。研究方案可在以下网址查阅:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=58844结果在纳入审查的研究中确定的初步结果和方法问题将在会议上提出。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
57 On the relevance of definitions: three conceptually challenging issues in overdiagnosis 80 Overdiagnosis and error in general practice: the need of a new approach 110 External validity of thromboprophylaxis guidelines in hip fracture patients: a retrospective analysis 33 A tale of two studies: diagnostic algorithms and clinical practice guidelines minimize overdiagnosis and overtreatment and maximize survival in lung cancer screening 116 The surveillance interval of follow-up colonoscopy after an initial colonoscopy: a retrospective study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1