ArticleClinical endoscopy2026
Enhanced adenoma detection with Endocuff Vision: a GRADE assessed systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Clinical 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths and the third most common cancer worldwide. Detecting adenomas during colonoscopy reduces the CRC risk, with higher adenoma detection rates (ADRs) correlating with lower CRC incidence and mortality. Endocuff Vision (EV) enhances mucosal visualization and may improve ADRs.
methodsFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched through April 2025 for studies comparing EV-assisted and standard colonoscopy. The primary outcomes of interest were the ADRs, polyp detection rates (PDRs), and adverse events (AEs). Outcomes were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis model and are presented as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences. Heterogeneity in the pooled outcomes was assessed using the Higgins I².
resultsThirty-four studies (43,702 participants) were included. EV significantly improved ADRs (RR, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI],1.07-1.25) and PDRs (RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.23). EV also improved lesion detection in the left colon (RR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.11-1.35) and right colon (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.09-1.29). No significant improvement was observed in advanced ADRs or cecal intubation. EV use was associated with more AEs.
conclusionsEV-assisted colonoscopy improved ADRs and PDRs in both colonic regions and enhanced CRC screening despite increased AEs.
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.