Trial reportEndoscopy2026
Computer-assisted versus standard colonoscopy for adenoma detection in a population-based colorectal cancer screening program: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in 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
33 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The impact of computer-aided detection (CADe) systems on lesion detection remains uncertain. We evaluated whether a CADe system improves adenoma detection rate (ADR) in a colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program. Methods: This multicenter randomized clinical trial included patients aged 40-79 years who underwent colonoscopy after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or for surveillance. Patients were randomized to either conventional or CADe-assisted colonoscopy. The primary end point was ADR. Secondary end points were detection rates for serrated lesions (SLDR), polyps (PDR), advanced adenomas (AADR), and advanced serrated lesions (ASLDR). We performed subgroup analysis according to indication, endoscopist ADR, and bowel cleansing. Effect estimates were reported as adjusted risk ratios (aRRs) and 95%CIs. Results: 857 patients were randomized and 827 were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups (mean age: 61.7 [SD 6.5]; male 490; positive FIT: 552). We did not find statistically significant differences between CADe-assisted and conventional colonoscopy for ADR (60.8% vs. 57.7%; aRR 1.05, 95%CI 0.94-1.17). No significant differences were observed for SLDR (8.8% vs. 7.2%; aRR 1.04, 0.65-1.64), PDR (69.6% vs. 68.8%; aRR 1.00, 0.91-1.10), AADR (23.6% vs. 24.4%; aRR 0.90, 0.71-1.14), or ASLDR (4.9% vs. 4.8%; aRR 0.93, 0.51-1.68). Subgroup analysis showed no significant differences. Conclusion: In colonoscopies performed in a CRC screening program, CADe-assisted colonoscopy did not increase ADR compared with conventional colonoscopy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42331035What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.