SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2026
Computer-aided detection with or without mucosal-exposure devices in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsRecent advances in endoscopic technologies aim to enhance visualization during the procedure. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of combining mucosal-exposure devices and computer-aided detection systems (CADe) versus CADe alone for adenoma detection during colonoscopy. Additionally, we conducted subgroup analysis by colonoscopy indication, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) to assess the robustness of the evidence.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to January 2025. We pooled risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsThree RCTs (2,404 patients) were included. The integration of CADe and mucosal-exposure device significantly improved the adenoma detection rate (ADR) (RR 1.12; 95% CI [1.03, 1.21]) and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) (MD 0.15; 95% CI [0.06, 0.24]) compared with CADe alone. However, the advanced adenoma detection rate, number of advanced adenomas per colonoscopy, cecal intubation time, and withdrawal time were similar between both approaches. The subgroup analysis for screening colonoscopy yielded consistent findings. In the TSA for ADR, the cumulative z-line crossed the boundary for effect and came within 43 patients of achieving the required sample size, while for APC, the cumulative z-line crossed the boundary for effect and reached the required sample size.
conclusionCombining CADe with mucosal-exposure devices during colonoscopy increased both ADR and APC without extending procedure time. However, this combination did not enhance the detection of advanced adenomas compared to CADe alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41413299What 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.