ArticleDEN open2026
A UK single-center pilot experience using a novel robotic inchworm colonoscopy system.
Article in DEN open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Colonoscopy is the gold standard investigation in the lower gastrointestinal tract. However, 75% of patients can experience pain with moderate sedation. The application of robotic technology aims to overcome difficulties faced including better utilization of rooms for advanced procedures and to achieve a complete colonoscopy in patients restricted by pain and technical challenges. Methods: This pilot study, the first at a UK-National Health Service Hospital between January 2023 to August 2024 with one expert endoscopist performing the robotic colonoscopy (RC). Patients with failed previous standard colonoscopy (SC) along with index diagnostic procedures deemed potentially difficult were recruited. Procedures were performed outside the endoscopy unit similar to an outpatient clinical room. Results: Ninety-three patients were recruited (41 men:52 women), mean age of 53.8 years over 20 months. The commonest indications for RC were rectal bleeding (26.9%), failed SC (22.6%), and change in bowel habits (17.2%). Twenty-one patients had failed the previous SC with 14 patients achieving completion with subsequent RC (66% improvement). The average cecal intubation time of 41.07 min with an average total procedure time of 76.48 min. A significant improvement in patient discomfort score was reported (4.71 SC vs. 1.71 RC; Conclusions: RC provides a significantly more comfortable colonoscopy and has great potential to improve safety in colonoscopy from this early cohort of patients. Direct visualization, biopsy, and polypectomy are still possible with RC. This study has demonstrated a viable alternative to SC. With no sedation it allows procedures to be conducted outside the traditional endoscopy unit such as outpatients. The study highlights a learning curve to reduce cecal intubation time.
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.