ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Pragmatic Implementation Study of a Computer-Aided Detection Device on Colonoscopy Outcomes at a Trainee-Dominated Academic County Hospital.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Financing Digestive Innovation-Energy from Synergy: A Concise Commentary.Digestive diseases and sciences · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMultiple randomized controlled trials have shown that real-time computer-aided detection (CADe) devices can significantly increase adenoma and sessile serrated polyp detection. Unfortunately, there have been several pragmatic implementation studies that have questioned the utility of these devices in everyday practice. This study aimed to understand the effects of the pragmatic implementation of a CADe device on colonoscopy metrics at a trainee-dominated academic county hospital.
methodsWe collected data on all colonoscopies performed 1 year before (1665 colonoscopies) and after implementation of the CADe device (2301 colonoscopies). CADe use was not mandated. We excluded colonoscopies which were incomplete and had inadequate bowel preparation (Boston Bowel Prep Score (BBPS)) < 6 or < 2 in any colonic segment.
resultsThe baseline adenoma detection rate (ADR) and sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR) were 31.5% and 1.3%, respectively, and increased by + 7.6% (95% CI 4.6-10.6) and + 2.9% (95% CI 1.9-3.8) after the implementation of CADe (p value < 0.001). After adjusting for other covariates (age, gender, BBPS, withdrawal time, positive fecal immunochemical test indication), the odds of adenoma detection (aOR 1.29, 95% CI 1.12-1.51, p = 0.001) and sessile serrated lesion detection (aOR 3.10, 95% CI 1.93-4.99, p < 0.001) were higher after CADe implementation.
conclusionThe implementation of a CADe device irrespective of CADe device usage significantly improved ADR and SSLDR in a trainee-dominated academic county hospital setting. The benefits of CADe devices may be more apparent, and implementation of CAD devices should be considered in practices where the ADR and/or SSLDR is not already exceedingly high.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40858859What 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.