We have located links that may give you full text access.
Artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy in real-world clinical practice: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology 2023 December 27
BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) could minimize the operator-dependent variation in colonoscopy quality. Computer-aided detection (CADe) has improved adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). There is a need to assess the impact of CADe in real-world settings.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science for non-randomized, real-world studies of CADe in colonoscopy. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to examine the effect of CADe on ADR and APC. The study is registered under PROSPERO (CRD42023424037). There was no funding for this study.
RESULTS: Twelve of 1,314 studies met inclusion criteria. Overall, ADR was statistically significantly higher with vs. without CADe (36.3% vs. 35.8%, risk ratio [RR] 1.13, 95% CI 1.01-1.28). This difference remained significant in subgroup analyses evaluating 6 prospective (37.3% vs 35.2%, RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01-1.32) but not 6 retrospective (35.7% vs 36.2%, RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92-1.36) studies. Among 6 studies with APC data, APC rate ratio with vs. without CADe was 1.12 (95% CI 0.95-1.33). In 4 studies with GI Genius (Medtronic), there was no difference in ADR with vs. without CADe (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85-1.07).
CONCLUSIONS: ADR, but not APC, was slightly higher with vs. without CADe among all available real-world studies. This difference was attributed to the results of prospective but not retrospective studies. The discrepancies between these findings vs. those of RCTs call for future research on the true impact of current AI technology on colonoscopy quality, and the subtleties of human-AI interactions.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science for non-randomized, real-world studies of CADe in colonoscopy. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to examine the effect of CADe on ADR and APC. The study is registered under PROSPERO (CRD42023424037). There was no funding for this study.
RESULTS: Twelve of 1,314 studies met inclusion criteria. Overall, ADR was statistically significantly higher with vs. without CADe (36.3% vs. 35.8%, risk ratio [RR] 1.13, 95% CI 1.01-1.28). This difference remained significant in subgroup analyses evaluating 6 prospective (37.3% vs 35.2%, RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01-1.32) but not 6 retrospective (35.7% vs 36.2%, RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92-1.36) studies. Among 6 studies with APC data, APC rate ratio with vs. without CADe was 1.12 (95% CI 0.95-1.33). In 4 studies with GI Genius (Medtronic), there was no difference in ADR with vs. without CADe (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.85-1.07).
CONCLUSIONS: ADR, but not APC, was slightly higher with vs. without CADe among all available real-world studies. This difference was attributed to the results of prospective but not retrospective studies. The discrepancies between these findings vs. those of RCTs call for future research on the true impact of current AI technology on colonoscopy quality, and the subtleties of human-AI interactions.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System: From History to Practice of a Secular Topic.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 5
Albumin: a comprehensive review and practical guideline for clinical use.European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2024 April 13
Revascularization Strategy in Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Disease.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2024 March 27
Clinical practice guidelines on the management of status epilepticus in adults: A systematic review.Epilepsia 2024 April 13
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app