Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41646990›Full record

ArticleiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2023

Artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma and polyp detection: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mohamed G Shiha, Priya Oka, Suneil A Raju, Foong Way David Tai, Hey-Long Ching, Mo Thoufeeq, Reena Sidhu, Mark E McAlindon, David S Sanders

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. AI-assisted multimodal data integration for precision oncology.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Mohamed G ShihaAcademic Unit of Gastroenterology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, and Department of Infection, Immunity & Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Priya OkaAcademic Unit of Gastroenterology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, and Department of Infection, Immunity & Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Suneil A RajuAcademic Unit of Gastroenterology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, and Department of Infection, Immunity & Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Foong Way David TaiAcademic Unit of Gastroenterology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, and Department of Infection, Immunity & Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Hey-Long ChingAcademic Unit of Gastroenterology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, and Department of Infection, Immunity & Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Mo ThoufeeqAcademic Unit of Gastroenterology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, and Department of Infection, Immunity & Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Reena SidhuAcademic Unit of Gastroenterology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, and Department of Infection, Immunity & Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Mark E McAlindonAcademic Unit of Gastroenterology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, and Department of Infection, Immunity & Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
David S SandersAcademic Unit of Gastroenterology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, and Department of Infection, Immunity & Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID41646990
PMCPMC12851087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.