ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology
Effect of add-on devices with projections on screening colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computer-aided detection with or without mucosal-exposure devices in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Combining techniques and technologies increases adenoma detection rates in colonoscopy: More is more.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Review
- Endocuff-Assisted Colonoscopy for Identifying Sessile Serrated Polyps and Adenomas During Routine Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Retrospective Cohort Study.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Article
- Improvement in Adenoma Detection Rate with Distal Attachment Device Endo-Wing™-Assisted Colonoscopy: A Randomized Control Trial.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Add-on devices with projections, e.g., Endocuff, Endocuff Vision, EndoRings, and Wingcap, placed on the distal tip of the colonoscope promise to improve the detection of precancerous lesions. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of these devices exclusively among individuals undergoing colonoscopy for screening purpose. Methods: A computerized literature search was performed across MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials that compared standard colonoscopy (SC) to procedures using add-on devices. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR), while secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate (PDR), advanced ADR (AADR), and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR). The effect size on study outcomes was calculated using a random-effects model and presented as the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Seven studies enrolling a total of 5785 patients were included. The use of add-on-devices with projections was associated with a higher ADR compared to SC: 45.9% vs. 41.1%; RR 1.18, 95%CI 1.02-1.37; P=0.03; Conclusion: Colonoscopy assisted by add-on devices with projections achieves a better ADR compared to SC among individuals undergoing screening for bowel cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.