ReviewEndoscopy international open2025
Conventional small-bowel capsule endoscopy reading vs proprietary artificial intelligence auxiliary systems: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Endoscopy international open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence for the Detection of Small Bowel Lesions and Neoplasia: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Recent technological advances in video capsule endoscopy: a comprehensive review.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-augmented small bowel capsule endoscopy for coeliac disease: a literature review on accuracy, workflow, and safety.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Review
- Role of artificial intelligence in the detection and characterization of gastrointestinal premalignant and early malignant lesions.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Post-Capsule Endoscopy Small Bowel Cancer Rates: Toward a Meaningful Quality Metric.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Article
- Marking 25 years of capsule endoscopy: from bold innovation to enduring legacy.Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopyArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is the gold standard for diagnosing small bowel (SB) pathologies, but its time-consuming nature and potential for human error make it challenging. Several proprietary artificial intelligence (AI) auxiliary systems based on convolutional neural networks (CNNs) that are integrated into SBCE reading platforms are available on the market and offer the opportunity to improve lesion detection and reduce reading times. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate performance of proprietary AI auxiliary platforms in SBCE compared with conventional, human-only reading. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies comparing AI-assisted SBCE readings with conventional readings by gastroenterologists. Performance measures such as accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and reading times were extracted and analyzed. Methodological transparency was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) assessment tool. Results: Of 669 identified studies, 104 met the inclusion criteria and six were included in the analysis. Quality assessment revealed high methodological transparency for all included studies. Pooled analysis showed that AI-assisted reading achieved significantly higher sensitivity and comparable specificity to conventional reading, with a higher log diagnostic odds ratio and no substantial heterogeneity. In addition, AI integration substantially reduced reading times, with a mean decrease of 12-fold compared with conventional reading. Conclusions: AI-assisted SBCE reading outperforms conventional human review in terms of detection accuracy and sensitivity, remarkably reducing reading times. AI in this setting could be a game-changer in reducing endoscopy service workload and supporting novice reader training.
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.