CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 216Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionAI in cancer detectionColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Real-Time Computer-Aided Detection of Colorectal Neoplasia During Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Hassan, Cesare, Spadaccini, Marco, Mori, Yuichi, Foroutan, Farid, Facciorusso, Antonio, Gkolfakis, Paraskevas, Tziatzios, Georgios, Triantafyllou, Konstantinos, Antonelli, Giulio, Khalaf, Kareem, Rizkala, Tommy, Vandvik, Per Olav, Fugazza, Alessandro, Rondonotti, Emanuele, Glissen-Brown, Jeremy R., Kamba, Shunsuke, Maida, Marcello, Correale, Loredana, Bhandari, Pradeep, Jover, Rodrigo, Sharma, Prateek, Rex, Douglas K., Repici, Alessandro·2023·Annals of Internal Medicine
DOI 10.7326/m22-3678
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence computer-aided detection (CADe) of colorectal neoplasia during colonoscopy may increase adenoma detection rates (ADRs) and reduce adenoma miss rates, but it may increase overdiagnosis and overtreatment of nonneoplastic polyps. PURPOSE: To quantify the benefits and harms of CADe in randomized trials. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. (PROSPERO: CRD42022293181). DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases through February 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials comparing CADe-assisted with standard colonoscopy for polyp and cancer detection. DATA EXTRACTION: Adenoma detection rate (proportion of patients with ≥1 adenoma), number of adenomas detected per colonoscopy, advanced adenoma (≥10 mm with high-grade dysplasia and villous histology), number of serrated lesions per colonoscopy, and adenoma miss rate were extracted as benefit outcomes. Number of polypectomies for nonneoplastic lesions and withdrawal time were extracted as harm outcomes. For each outcome, studies were pooled using a random-effects model. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-one randomized trials on 18 232 patients were included. The ADR was higher in the CADe group than in the standard colonoscopy group (44.0% vs. 35.9%; relative risk, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.16 to 1.33]; low-certainty evidence), corresponding to a 55% (risk ratio, 0.45 [CI, 0.35 to 0.58]) relative reduction in miss rate (moderate-certainty evidence). More nonneoplastic polyps were removed in the CADe than the standard group (0.52 vs. 0.34 per colonoscopy; mean difference [MD], 0.18 polypectomy [CI, 0.11 to 0.26 polypectomy]; low-certainty evidence). Mean inspection time increased only marginally with CADe (MD, 0.47 minute [CI, 0.23 to 0.72 minute]; moderate-certainty evidence). LIMITATIONS: This review focused on surrogates of patient-important outcomes. Most patients, however, may consider cancer incidence and cancer-related mortality important outcomes. The effect of CADe on such patient-important outcomes remains unclear. CONCLUSION: The use of CADe for polyp detection during colonoscopy results in increased detection of adenomas but not advanced adenomas and in higher rates of unnecessary removal of nonneoplastic polyps. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: European Commission Horizon 2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/m22-3678

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 37 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–216 of 216

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hassan, C., Spadaccini, M., Mori, Y., Foroutan, F., Facciorusso, A., Gkolfakis, P., Tziatzios, G., Triantafyllou, K., Antonelli, G., Khalaf, K., Rizkala, T., Vandvik, P. O., Fugazza, A., Rondonotti, E., Glissen-Brown, J. R., Kamba, S., Maida, M., Correale, L., Bhandari, P., Jover, R., Sharma, P., Rex, D. K., & Repici, A.
Affiliations
  • Humanitas University (IT)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
  • University Health Network (CA)
  • University of Foggia (IT)
  • Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE)
  • National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
  • Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine-Propaedeutic, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Attikon University General Hospital, Athens, Greece (G.T., K.T.)
  • Sapienza University of Rome (IT)
  • Lovisenberg Diakonale Sykehus (NO)
  • IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital (IT)
  • Ospedale Valduce (IT)
  • Center for Advanced Endoscopy, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (J.R.G.)
  • Jikei University School of Medicine (JP)
  • Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, S. Elia-Raimondi Hospital, Caltanissetta, Italy (M.M.)
  • Queen Alexandra Hospital (GB)
  • Hospital General Universitario de Alicante Doctor Balmis (ES)
  • Kansas City VA Medical Center (US)
  • Indiana University Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
  • Hassan, Cesare
  • Spadaccini, Marco
ORCID
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Publisher
American College of Physicians
Published
2023-09
Volume
176
Issue
9
Pages
1209-1220
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
DOI
10.7326/m22-3678
OpenAlex
W4386213466
Cited by
216
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 62 · 2025: 88 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 8
FWCI
6.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (23K24615)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Keywords
computer-aided detection, colorectal neoplasia, colonoscopy, adenoma detection rate, advanced adenoma, serrated lesions, polypectomy, overdiagnosis, artificial intelligence, colorectal cancer screening, withdrawal time, inspection time, adenoma miss rate, colorectal cancer
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Colonoscopy, Computers, Humans, Colorectal Neoplasms, Databases, Factual

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review