SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2026
Artificial intelligence with mucosal exposure devices versus artificial intelligence alone in detection of colorectal adenomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Surgical 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsBoth artificial intelligence (AI) and mucosal exposure devices (MEDs) have been shown to improve adenoma detection rate and reduce miss rate during colonoscopy. However, the effectiveness of AI combined with MEDs remains unclear. In this meta-analysis, we have evaluated the combined effect of AI with MEDs on enhancing detection rates of various colonic lesions.
methodsSeveral databases were reviewed to identify studies reporting data on outcomes of interest from inception to December 10, 2025. Our outcomes of interest were the adenoma detection rate (ADR), adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), sessile serrated detection rate (SSDR), and advanced adenoma detection rate (aADR). Further subgroup analyses were performed based on adenoma size, location, and mucosal exposure device type. Data were analyzed using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I
resultsTwelve studies (8 RCTs, 2 retrospective, and 2 prospective) with a total of 6155 patients (2700 AI + MED, 3455 AI alone group) met the inclusion criteria. AI + MED were associated with higher rates of ADR, RR 1.15 (95% CI 1.07-1.25; p = 0.0005) as compared to AI alone, and subgroup analysis on device type also showed higher rates for AI + Endocuff RR 1.19 (95% CI 1.08-1.32; p = 0.0006) and AI + balloon device did not show significant results for ADR, RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.93-1.27; p = 0.32) between the groups, however, the formal test for subgroup differences between device type was not statistically significant (P = 0.33). There was no significant difference in aADR, SSDR, proximal ADR, cecal intubation time, withdrawal time, ADRs for size < 5 mm, and ADRs for size 6-9 mm between AI + MED vs. AI alone.
conclusionsAI-assisted colonoscopy augmented with a mucosal exposure device, particularly Endocuff, significantly enhanced ADR compared with AI alone, while aADR, proximal ADR overall, SSDR, and procedure times were comparable between strategies. These findings suggest that the selective use of Endocuff in AI-enabled colonoscopy may optimize lesion detection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42443688What 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.