Lippincott Williams & Wilkins



Supplementary Table 1 Characteristics of the study populations (part 1)Study Publication year Start of inclusion yearDesignData source*Number ofcolonoscopies%maleIndication for colonoscopySymptoms Screening** Therapeutic Age (years)mean median rangeExclusionKim2013Warren2009Karajeh2006Hamdani2013Moon2014Rabeneck2008Rathgaber2006Denis2013Bokemeyer2009Radaelli2008Singh2009Baudet2009Crispin2009Rutter2014Bair2009Gupta2012Sewitch2012Samalavicius2013Pan2012Choung2014Blotiere2014200120012002200220022002200220032003200420042005200620062006200620072007200720102010retrospectiveretrospectiveprospectiveretrospectiveretrospectiveretrospectiveretrospectiveretrospectiveretrospectiveprospectiveretrospectiveprospectiveprospectiveprospectiveprospectiveretrospectiveprospectiveretrospectiveretrospectiveretrospectiveretrospective 3 2 3 31 2 31 2 3 2 1 2 3 2 31 2 3 2 3 2 31 2 3 2 3 31 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 32553220200080118832797091124071027726914412835212631126236087130831374112002134568824931685094706173.841.745.039.086.445.847.8***44.353.245.046.543.360.748.157.050.142.555.659.344.4 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 58.0 ** * ****** *** 66-95*** 75 17-101*** *** >1860.5 *** ***60.9 *** 50-7559.7 *** ***62.7 *** 50-74*** *** 55-9960.0 63 2-9959.0 58 48-7750.4 *** ****** 61 18-10065.7 ** * 59-92*** 57 18-75*** *** 60-7560.9 *** 50-7570.0 *** 39-8565.1 *** ***58.7 *** ****** *** ***IBDIBD/CRC/diverticulitis---IBD/CRC/colon surgery-IBD/high CRC riskIBD/CRC/symptoms***-Colon surgery/ASA III--Co-morbidities----IBD-*1: primary care center, 2: secondary care center, 3: tertiary care center** Screening and surveillance colonoscopies*** Not specifiedSupplementary Table 2 Characteristics of the study populations (part 2)AuthorIdentification of complicationsPrimary outcome is study aimComorbidities% Gastroenterologist% Surgeon% Other endoscopist% Anticoagulation use **Follow-up ( days post-colonoscopy)Deceased due to colonoscopyKim et al, 2013Medical recordsYes*---14.3*<30NoWarren et al, 2009ICD-codesYesHF 15.0%, COPD 12.0%, DM 33.4%, CVA 10.0%----<30N.A.Karajeh et al 2006Questionnaires Yes-44.2055.8-<30 1 Hamdani et al, 2013ICD-codesYesComorbidity count 0 -2+80.719.30-< 7 NoMoon et al, 2014Medical recordsYes*---52.2*< 7NoRabeneck et al, 2008ICD-codesYesComorbidity score 0-≥320.949.329.8-<30 5 Rathgaber et al, 2006Medical recordsYes-1000052*<30 NoDenis et al, 2013Hospital databaseYes-10000-<30NoBokemeyer et al, 2009Hospital databaseNo-----<30 NoRadaelli et al, 2008QuestionnairesNo-----<14NoSingh et al, 2009ICD-codesYes-3956523* <301 Baudet et al, 2009Medical recordsYesASA-classification ---<30NoCrispin et al, 2009ICD-codesNo-----<33Rutter et al, 2014Hospital databaseYes-----<30 NoBair et al, 2009Medical recordsYes-100--<30NoGupta et al, 2012Hospital databaseNo-60---<30NoSewitch et al, 2012Hospital databaseYesGI-conditions: 29.4%----<30NoSamalavicius et al, 2013Medical recordsYes-----<303 Pan et al, 2012Hospital databaseYes----29.4<301 Choung et al, 2014Medical recordsYesDM 6.8%, HT 8.3%, CVD 3.3%---12.2<14N.A.Blotiere et al, 2014ICD-codesYes-10000-<7N.A.- = Not described, * Only described in patients with complications, **Anticoagulation includes: aspirin, antiplatelets, anticoagulantsN.A. =Not applied, no deaths in study, ASA = American Society of Anesthesiologists, CHF = Congestive heart failure, COPD = Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, CVA = Cerebrovascular accident, CVD = Cardiovascular disease, DM = Diabetes mellitus, HT = hypertension.Supplementary Table 3 The quality assessment of prevalence studies using a modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Loney’s scaleAuthorDOM1ADOM1BDOM1CDOM1DDOM2ADOM2BDOM2CDOM 2DDOM2EOverall risk on biasKim et al, 2013HLYHYYHLYHighWarren et al, 2009LHYLYYLLYLowKarajeh et al 2006HLULYYLLYLowHamdani et al, 2013LLULYYLHYLowMoon et al, 2014HLYHYYHHYHighRabeneck et al, 2008LLULYYLLYLowRathgaber et al, 2006LLYLYYLLYLowDenis et al, 2013LHYLYYLLYLowBokemeyer et al, 2009LLYLNYLLYLowRadaelli et al, 2008LUYHNUHLYHighSingh et al, 2009LLYHYYHLYLowBaudet et al, 2009HLULYYHLYHighCrispin et al, 2009LLYLNYLHUHighRutter et al, 2014LLYLYYLLYLowBair et al, 2009HLULYYLLYLowGupta et al, 2012HLULNYLLYHighSewitch et al, 2012HUYLYYLLYLowSamalavicius et al, 2013LUYLYYLLYLowPan et al, 2012HLYHYYHLYHighChoung et al, 2014ULYHYYHHYHighBlotiere et al, 2014LLULYYLHYLowDOM1 Selection of patients as potential source of bias: DOM1A, Truly representative sample of patients in the community enrolled; DOM1B, Study avoided inappropriate exclusions; DOM1C, Prespecified definitions used; DOM1D, Selection of patients introduced bias; DOM2 Ascertainment of exposure as potential source of bias: DOM2A, Complications as primary outcome, DOM2B, Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study; DOM2C, Concern that included patients do not match the review question; DOM2D, Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur; DOM2E, Complete follow-up of all subjects. H= high risk on bias, L= low risk on bias, U=unclear risk on bias, Y=Yes, N=No. Supplementary Table 4 Meta-regression analysis for mean ageOverallNp-valuePerforation110.81Bleeding120.89Mortality150.69N= Number of studies availableN.A.= Not applicableSupplementary Table 5 Sensitivity analysis on prevalences in all studies versus studies with low risk on biasIn all studiesIn low bias studiesN%95% CIN%95% CIPerforation160.05(0.04-0.07)120.06(0.04-0.07)Bleeding160.26(0.17-0.37)110.21(0.11-0.34)Mortality180.0029(0.0011-0.0055)110.0029(0.0008-0.0063)N= number of studies included in analysisSupplementary Figure 1 Funnel plots of post-colonoscopy perforation (A) and bleeding rate (B)A B ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download