ReviewThe American journal of gastroenterology2025
Contemporary Landscape of Medical Technology in Gastroenterology Between 2013 and 2023.
Review in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Emerging innovation, artificial intelligence, and digital technology in esophagology.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Medical technology in gastroenterology spans devices, point-of-care diagnostics, digital health, and artificial intelligence. We conducted a narrative review of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-reviewed medical technology on the available evidence base to support uptake in clinical practice. Seven hundred thirteen new gastrointestinal devices were FDA approved or cleared between 2013 and 2023. The most frequent technologies had indications for use in general endoscopy (442 or 62.0% of all new technologies) with advanced endoscopy technologies being the second most common (172 or 24.1%). Ninety-nine new technologies had indications for use outside of the endoscopy suite. Ninety-nine percent of new technologies were FDA cleared against existing technologies through the 510(k) pathway rather than approved on new clinical data. Among the 19 devices with clinical trial data, trials were limited in sample size and generally evaluated disease-related changes or technical success rather than patient-reported outcomes that anchor drug trials. Twelve devices (63.2%) had favorable, published cost-effective data. To promote evidence-based discussion and uptake of new technology, and especially disruptive or high-risk technology, we propose a practical framework informed by balancing probable efficacy and safety and considering cost-effectiveness.
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.