Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37510196›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Robotic Colonoscopy and Beyond: Insights into Modern Lower Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Emanuele Tumino, Pierfrancesco Visaggi, Valeria Bolognesi, Linda Ceccarelli, Christian Lambiase, Sergio Coda, Purushothaman Premchand, Massimo Bellini, Nicola de Bortoli, Emanuele Marciano

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Application of micro/nanorobot in medicine.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024
    Review
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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Emanuele TuminoEndoscopy Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, 56125 Pisa, Italy.
Pierfrancesco VisaggiEndoscopy Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, 56125 Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6985-5301
Valeria BolognesiEndoscopy Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, 56125 Pisa, Italy.
Linda CeccarelliGastroenterology Unit, Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, 56100 Pisa, Italy.
Christian LambiaseGastroenterology Unit, Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, 56100 Pisa, Italy.
Sergio CodaDigestive Disease Centre, Division of Surgery, Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Romford RM70AG, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3175-5548
Purushothaman PremchandDigestive Disease Centre, Division of Surgery, Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Romford RM70AG, UK.
Massimo BelliniGastroenterology Unit, Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, 56100 Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6387-6443
Nicola de BortoliGastroenterology Unit, Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, 56100 Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1995-1060
Emanuele MarcianoEndoscopy Unit, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Pisana, 56125 Pisa, Italy.
University of Pisa · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Pisana · ITBarking, Havering And Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lower gastrointestinal endoscopy is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis and removal of colonic polyps. Delays in colonoscopy following a positive fecal immunochemical test increase the likelihood of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer (CRC) occurrence. However, patients may refuse to undergo conventional colonoscopy (CC) due to fear of possible risks and pain or discomfort. In this regard, patients undergoing CC frequently require sedation to better tolerate the procedure, increasing the risk of deep sedation or other complications related to sedation. Accordingly, the use of CC as a first-line screening strategy for CRC is hampered by patients' reluctance due to its invasiveness and anxiety about possible discomfort. To overcome the limitations of CC and improve patients' compliance, several studies have investigated the use of robotic colonoscopy (RC) both in experimental models and in vivo. Self-propelling robotic colonoscopes have proven to be promising thanks to their peculiar dexterity and adaptability to the shape of the lower gastrointestinal tract, allowing a virtually painless examination of the colon. In some instances, when alternatives to CC and RC are required, barium enema (BE), computed tomographic colonography (CTC), and colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) may be options. However, BE and CTC are limited by the need for subsequent investigations whenever suspicious lesions are found. In this narrative review, we discussed the current clinical applications of RC, CTC, and CCE, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of different endoscopic procedures, with a particular focus on RC.

Indexed as

colonoscopylower gastrointestinal endoscopyrobotic colonoscopy

Identifiers

PMID37510196
PMCPMC10378494
OpenAlexW4385216326

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.