Observational studyWorld journal of gastroenterology2026
Availability and use of computer-aided detection during colonoscopy: A real-world observational study at an Australian tertiary center.
Observational study in World journal of gastroenterology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOne of the main aims of colonoscopy is to detect and remove precancerous polyps. Multiple studies have shown that computer-aided detection (CADe) technology enhances key metrics, including adenoma detection rate (ADR), among endoscopists with low baseline detection rates. However, these findings largely come from controlled prospective studies where CADe is systematically used and endoscopists are aware they are being monitored for such metrics, bringing inherent biases. In Australia, CADe implementation is not yet standard practice, and its availability varies across endoscopy centers. We hypothesized that greater endoscopist use of CADe would be associated with higher ADR in real-world clinical settings.
aimTo evaluate how varying levels of endoscopist use of CADe affect adenoma detection and other colonoscopy quality metrics in a tertiary Australian center, where CADe was available for all elective procedures from 2023.
methodsA single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary Australian center after introduction of the Olympus Endo-AID
resultsSeven endoscopists performed 636 pre-CADe and 386 post-CADe colonoscopies. Two endoscopists used CADe 100% of the time, four used it 50%-99%, and one did not use CADe. No endoscopists used CADe 1%-50% of the time. ADR significantly improved from 29% to 41.9% in the 50%-99% group (odds ratio 1.77, 95%CI: 1.13-2.75,
conclusionIn this real-world study, the availability of CADe was associated with an uptake by the majority of the endoscopists and led to significant improvement in ADR even when not being used in all procedures. Similarly to previous studies, no such benefit was observed for endoscopists who had a high baseline ADR. However, endoscopists with high baseline ADR did improve their APP after introduction of CADe. In addition, CADe availability did not improve SSL-DR across the cohort. This real-world significant increase from moderate baseline ADR reinforces its benefit when adopted in routine clinical practice.
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.