Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37079002›Full record

Trial reportDigestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society2024

Impact of an artificial intelligence-aided endoscopic diagnosis system on improving endoscopy quality for trainees in colonoscopy: Prospective, randomized, multicenter study.

Daisuke Yamaguchi, Ryo Shimoda, Koichi Miyahara, Takahiro Yukimoto, Yasuhisa Sakata, Ayako Takamori, Yumi Mizuta, Yutaro Fujimura, Suma Inoue, Michito Tomonaga and 11 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
14.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Daisuke YamaguchiDepartment of Gastroenterology, National Hospital Organization Ureshino Medical Center, Ureshino, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9782-9998
Ryo ShimodaDepartment of Endoscopic Diagnostics and Therapeutics, Saga University Hospital, Saga, Japan.
Koichi MiyaharaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Karatsu Red Cross Hospital, Saga, Japan.
Takahiro YukimotoDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Saga University, Saga, Japan.
Yasuhisa SakataDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Saga University, Saga, Japan.
Ayako TakamoriClinical Research Center, Saga University Hospital, Saga, Japan.
Yumi MizutaDepartment of Gastroenterology, National Hospital Organization Ureshino Medical Center, Ureshino, Japan.
Yutaro FujimuraDepartment of Internal Medicine, Karatsu Red Cross Hospital, Saga, Japan.
Suma InoueDepartment of Internal Medicine, Karatsu Red Cross Hospital, Saga, Japan.
Michito TomonagaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Saga University, Saga, Japan.
Yuya OginoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Karatsu Red Cross Hospital, Saga, Japan.
Kohei EguchiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Karatsu Red Cross Hospital, Saga, Japan.
Kei IkedaDepartment of Gastroenterology, National Hospital Organization Ureshino Medical Center, Ureshino, Japan.
Yuichiro TanakaDepartment of Gastroenterology, National Hospital Organization Ureshino Medical Center, Ureshino, Japan.
Hironobu TakedomiDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Saga University, Saga, Japan.
Hidenori HidakaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Karatsu Red Cross Hospital, Saga, Japan.
Takashi AkutagawaDepartment of Endoscopic Diagnostics and Therapeutics, Saga University Hospital, Saga, Japan.
Nanae TsuruokaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Saga University, Saga, Japan.
Takahiro NodaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Karatsu Red Cross Hospital, Saga, Japan.
Seiji TsunadaDepartment of Gastroenterology, National Hospital Organization Ureshino Medical Center, Ureshino, Japan.
Motohiro EsakiDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Saga University, Saga, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1195-0074
Saga University · JPTakamatsu Red Cross Hospital · JPNational Hospital Organization · JP

Funding

Japanese Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Academic research grant in 2021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study was performed to evaluate whether the use of CAD EYE (Fujifilm, Tokyo, Japan) for colonoscopy improves colonoscopy quality in gastroenterology trainees.

methodsThe patients in this multicenter randomized controlled trial were divided into Group A (observation using CAD EYE) and Group B (standard observation). Six trainees performed colonoscopies using a back-to-back method in pairs with gastroenterology experts. The primary end-point was the trainees' adenoma detection rate (ADR), and the secondary end-points were the trainees' adenoma miss rate (AMR) and Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy (ACE) tool scores. Each trainee's learning curve was evaluated using a cumulative sum (CUSUM) control chart.

resultsWe analyzed data for 231 patients (Group A, n = 113; Group B, n = 118). The ADR was not significantly different between the two groups. Group A had a significantly lower AMR (25.6% vs. 38.6%, P = 0.033) and number of missed adenomas per patient (0.5 vs. 0.9, P = 0.004) than Group B. Group A also had significantly higher ACE tool scores for pathology identification (2.26 vs. 2.07, P = 0.030) and interpretation and identification of pathology location (2.18 vs. 2.00, P = 0.038). For the CUSUM learning curve, Group A showed a trend toward a lower number of cases of missed multiple adenomas by the six trainees.

conclusionCAD EYE did not improve ADR but decreased the AMR and improved the ability to accurately locate and identify colorectal adenomas. CAD EYE can be assumed to be beneficial for improving colonoscopy quality in gastroenterology trainees.

trial registrationUniversity Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000044031).

Indexed as

AdenomaColonic PolypsColorectal NeoplasmsArtificial IntelligenceClinical CompetenceColonoscopyHumansProspective Studiesadenoma detection rateadenoma miss ratecolonoscopycomputer-aided diagnosistrainee

Identifiers

PMID37079002
PMCPMC12136242
OpenAlexW4366463000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.