SynthesisWorld journal of surgical oncology2026
Diagnostic accuracy of computer-aided detection for colorectal polyps of any size, ≤ 5 mm, and 6-9 mm: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of surgical oncology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough computer-aided detection (CAD) is often used for medical diagnostic purposes, its diagnostic effectiveness in colorectal polyps (CPs) remains uncertain.
objectiveTo summarize the diagnostic accuracy of CAD in diagnosing CPs, and provide a specific theoretical basis for clinical practice.
methodsFrom database creation to August 1st 2024, we conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Wanfang, Cochrane Library, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). The pooled sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve (AUC), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and Fagan plot analysis were employed to evaluate the overall performance of CAD tests. Furthermore, we assessed publication bias using Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test.
resultsThe aggregated diagnostic data from 19 studies (any size), 12 studies (≤ 5 mm polyps) and 2 studies (6-9 mm polyps) were as follows: The sensitivity for polyps of any size, ≤ 5 mm, and 6-9 mm was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96), 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.95) and 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.97), respectively. The specificity was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.86-0.95), 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-0.93) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.88-0.92), respectively. The AUC was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.96-0.99), 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.98), and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.89-0.94), respectively. Deeks' funnel plot showed that publication bias was not statistically significant in the diagnosis of polyps of any size and ≤ 5 mm CPs (P > 0.05).
conclusionIn summary, CAD is accurate for all types of CPs. Specifically, for polyps of any size and those ≤ 5 mm, CAD was more sensitive and specific for CPs of any size.
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.