PubMed · 11019672
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
S J Bickston. 2000. Dealing with diverticulitis.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11019672/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer remains a leading cause of death despite being largely preventable through polypectomy. AI systems designed to enhance polyp detection during colonoscopy have shown promise, but the extent to which they improve detection of different-sized polyps remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the size-stratified efficacy of AI-assisted colonoscopy vs standard colonoscopy using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) method, and generated exploratory rankings while acknowledging all cross-platform comparisons are indirect. METHODS: This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science from inception to July 25, 2026, supplemented by citation searching. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AI-assisted vs standard colonoscopy in adults (≥18 years of age), reporting mean polyp detection counts stratified by size (≤5 mm, 6-9 mm, and ≥10 mm). Two reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0. We conducted frequentist NMA using the HKSJ method with restricted maximum likelihood estimation, calculated 95% prediction intervals (PIs), and assessed heterogeneity using I2 and τ2. Certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) framework. RESULTS: A total of 13 RCTs (4156 participants) compared 8 AI systems to standard colonoscopy, forming a network without direct AI comparisons. For diminutive polyps (≤5 mm), AI showed a modest advantage (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.35, 95% PI -1.12 to 1.54), but substantial heterogeneity (I2=86.6%) and wide PI crossing the null indicated high uncertainty. EndoScreener showed the most consistent evidence (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.18-0.54). For small and large polyps, effects were minimal (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.06, 95% PI -0.03 to 0.07; SMD 0.01, 95% CI 0.00-0.02, 95% PI -0.01 to 0.03). GRADE certainty was very low for diminutive polyps and low for small and large polyps. Sensitivity analysis excluding Tianjin YuJin did not materially change findings. CONCLUSIONS: AI may modestly enhance diminutive polyp detection, but effects on small and large polyps are minimal, with no platform superiority. Given very low to low certainty, findings are hypothesis-generating. This exploratory NMA provides size-stratified comparisons that can inform future head-to-head trial design. Unlike prior reviews aggregating all polyp sizes, we show the overall AI benefit is driven by diminutive polyp detection, providing a framework for targeted deployment-prioritizing AI for diminutive polyp screening, with limited value for larger lesions. Head-to-head trials are urgently needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD420251266932; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251266932.
BACKGROUND: There is a need for research to identify factors influencing intentions to undergo colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among family members at risk for CRC. This study tested a mediational model primarily guided by Ronis' elaboration of the Health Belief Model in predicting intention to have colorectal cancer screening among siblings of individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer prior to age 56 years. METHODS: Data were collected from 534 siblings of individuals diagnosed with CRC. A baseline survey was administered by telephone. Measures included perceived susceptibility, CRC severity, physician and family support for CRC screening, cancer-specific distress, the closeness of the relationship with the affected sibling, and future intention to have a colonoscopy. Participant age, gender, and number of prior colonoscopies, as well as the stage of the affected patient's cancer and time from the patient's diagnosis to the interview, were controlled for in the analyses. RESULTS: The proposed model was not a good fit to the data. A respecified model was fit to the data. In this model, physician support, family support, and sibling closeness were significantly associated with both perceived benefits and barriers. Perceived severity was associated with barriers. Benefits and barriers, as well as cancer-specific distress, were directly associated with colonoscopy intentions. Results were consistent with a mediational role for benefits and barriers in the associations of sibling closeness and with a mediational role for barriers in the association between perceived severity and colonoscopy intentions. Family and physician support impacted intentions both directly and indirectly through effects on benefits and barriers. Perceived risk was not associated with benefits, barriers, or colonoscopy intentions. CONCLUSION: Intervention efforts to increase colonoscopy intentions may benefit from targeting family influences, particularly the affected proband in the family, as well as physician influence, cancer-related distress, perceived CRC severity, and perceived benefits and barriers to colonoscopy.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.