ReviewJGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology2026
Integration of Endocuff-Assisted and Computer-Aided Colonoscopy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology, 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.
- Integration of Endocuff-Assisted and Computer-Aided Colonoscopy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Review
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
Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths, with missed lesions during colonoscopy contributing to increased mortality. AI-assisted computer-aided detection (CADe) systems help reduce adenoma miss rates, and their integration with mucosal exposure devices like EndoCuff vision may enhance detection. This meta-analysis assesses the effectiveness of combining CADe and EndoCuff vision-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) compared to standard colonoscopy or CADe alone. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and clinicaltrials.gov up to November 2024. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CADe+EAC with CADe alone or standard colonoscopy and reporting adenoma detection rate (ADR) were included. Statistical analysis was performed using R version 4.4.0, with mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Four RCTs with 3333 participants were included. Among them, 1228 underwent CADe+EAC, while 554 received standard colonoscopy and 1236 underwent CADe alone. CADe+EAC significantly improved ADR (RR: 1.36; 95% CI: 1.19-1.56), advanced ADR (RR: 1.62; 95% CI: 1.16-2.25), sessile serrated lesion detection rate (RR: 1.95; 95% CI: 1.46-2.61), and mean adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) (MD: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.49-0.52) compared to standard colonoscopy. Compared to CADe alone, CADe+EAC further improved ADR (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.04-1.22) and mean APC (MD: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.07-0.24). However, withdrawal and insertion times were significantly lower in the CADe+EAC group. Conclusion: The combination of CADe and EAC enhances adenoma detection compared to standard colonoscopy and CADe alone. Further multi-center trials with diverse AI models are needed to confirm its effectiveness.
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.