ArticleiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2023
Artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma and polyp detection: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of expert-curated video training data on computer-aided detection of sessile serrated lesions: a retrospective study in Korea.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Availability and use of computer-aided detection during colonoscopy: A real-world observational study at an Australian tertiary center.World journal of gastroenterology · 2026Observational
- AI-assisted multimodal data integration for precision oncology.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in colonoscopy: Enhancing quality indicators for optimal patient outcomes.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Variation in Proximal Sessile Serrated Lesion Detection Rates During Non-screening Colonoscopies.Cureus · 2025Article
- Improvement in adenoma detection rate by artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy: Multicenter quasi-randomized controlled trial.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Endoscopy in Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Tumors: A Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Gastro hep advances · 2025Review
- A prospective comparison of two computer aided detection systems with different false positive rates in colonoscopy.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Impact of User's Background Knowledge and Polyp Characteristics in Colonoscopy with Computer-Aided Detection.Gut and liver · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: There is a growing interest in the role of artificial intelligence in colonoscopy. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of computer-aided detection (CADe) of colorectal adenomas and polyps. Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central of Controlled Trials (from inception to December 2022) databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing colonoscopy with CADe versus standard colonoscopy (SC). We performed a random-effects meta-analysis and reported the results as relative risks (RRs) or mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Twelve randomized controlled trials comprising 11,340 patients were included in the final analysis. The pooled adenoma detection rate was significantly higher in the CADe group compared with the SC group (41.4% vs 33%; RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.18-1.35). CADe increased the detection of adenomas regardless of their size (≤5 mm [RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.38-1.77], 6-9 mm [RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.05-1.47], and ≥10 mm [RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.11-1.53]), location (proximal colon [RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.26-1.58] and distal colon [RR, 1.44; 95% 1.29-1.61]), or morphology (polypoid [RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.17-1.56] and nonpolypoid [RR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.25-1.93]). There was no difference between the CADe and SC groups in detecting advanced adenomas or sessile serrated lesions. Colonoscopy withdrawal time was longer in the CADe group compared with the SC group (mean difference, .34 minute; 95% CI, .17-.51). Conclusions: Using CADe during colonoscopy is associated with a significant increase in adenoma detection rate and adenomas per colonoscopy, mainly due to the increased detection of diminutive adenomas.
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.