ArticleJAMA network open2023
Development and Evaluation of a Surveillance System for Follow-Up After Colorectal Polypectomy.
Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic performance of AI-assisted endoscopy diagnosis of digestive system tumors: an umbrella review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Asia-Pacific consensus on the use of artificial intelligence in colorectal cancer screening and surveillance.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2025Article
- [Role of Artificial Intelligence in Improving Quality of Colonoscopy].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: The adherence of physicians and patients to published colorectal postpolypectomy surveillance guidelines varies greatly, and patient follow-up is critical but time consuming. Objectives: To evaluate the accuracy of an automatic surveillance (AS) system in identifying patients after polypectomy, assigning surveillance intervals for different risks of patients, and proactively following up with patients on time. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this diagnostic/prognostic study, endoscopic and pathological reports of 47 544 patients undergoing colonoscopy at 3 hospitals between January 1, 2017, and June 30, 2022, were collected to develop an AS system based on natural language processing. The performance of the AS system was fully evaluated in internal and external tests according to 5 guidelines worldwide and compared with that of physicians. A multireader, multicase (MRMC) trial was conducted to evaluate use of the AS system and physician guideline adherence, and prospective data were collected to evaluate the success rate in contacting patients and the association with reduced human workload. Data analysis was conducted from July to September 2022. Exposures: Assistance of the AS system. Main Outcomes and Measures: The accuracy of the system in identifying patients after polypectomy, stratifying patient risk levels, and assigning surveillance intervals in internal (Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University), external 1 (Wenzhou Central Hospital), and external 2 (The First People's Hospital of Yichang) test sets; the accuracy of physicians and their time burden with and without system assistance; and the rate of successfully informed patients of the system were evaluated. Results: Test sets for 16 106 patients undergoing colonoscopy (mean [SD] age, 51.90 [13.40] years; 7690 females [47.75%]) were evaluated. In internal, external 1, and external 2 test sets, the system had an overall accuracy of 99.91% (95% CI, 99.83%-99.95%), 99.54% (95% CI, 99.30%-99.70%), and 99.77% (95% CI, 99.41%-99.91%), respectively, for identifying types of patients and achieved an overall accuracy of at least 99.30% (95% CI, 98.67%-99.63%) in the internal test set, 98.89% (95% CI, 98.33%-99.27%) in external test set 1, and 98.56% (95% CI, 95.86%-99.51%) in external test set 2 for stratifying patient risk levels and assigning surveillance intervals according to 5 guidelines. The system was associated with increased mean (SD) accuracy among physicians vs no AS system in 105 patients (98.67% [1.28%] vs 78.10% [18.01%]; P = .04) in the MRMC trial. In a prospective trial, the AS system successfully informed 82 of 88 patients (93.18%) and was associated with reduced burden of follow-up time vs no AS system (0 vs 2.86 h). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that an AS system was associated with improved adherence to guidelines among physicians and reduced workload among physicians and nurses.
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.