BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Home / Archive / Volume 31, Issue 40
  • This Article
Peer-Review Report of This Article
CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article
Academic Rules and Norms of This Article
Citation of this article
Corresponding Author of This Article
Research Domain of This Article
Article-Type of This Article
Open-Access Policy of This Article
Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article
Journal Information of This Article
Publication Name
World Journal of Gastroenterology
ISSN
1007-9327
Publisher of This Article
Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Review
©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Gastroenterol. Oct 28, 2025; 31(40): 111499
Published online Oct 28, 2025. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v31.i40.111499
Table 3 Summary of systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating the impact of artificial intelligence on miss rate metrics in colonoscopy[40,52,57,58]
Ref.
Year
Study type
Patient number
Number of studies
Primary outcome
Artificial intelligence vs conventional colonoscopy (95%CI)
Hassan et al[57]2023Systematic review and meta-analysis1823221 RCTsAMRAMR: 16% vs 35%; RR = 0.45 (0.35 to 0.58)
Lou et al[58]2023Systematic review and meta-analysis2740433 RCTsAMRAMR: RR = 0.495 (0.390 to 0.627)
Maida et al[52]2024Systematic review and meta-analysis17186 RCTsAMR, PMRPMR: 16.3% vs 38.1%; RR = 0.44 (0.33 to 0.60); AMR: 15.3% vs 34.1%; RR = 0.46 (0.38 to 0.55)
Makar et al[40]2025Systematic review and meta-analysis2386128 RCTsAMRAMR: RR = 0.45 (0.37 to 0.54)
CI: Confidence interval; RCTs: Randomized clinical trials; AMR: Adenoma miss rate; PMR: Polyp miss rate; RR: Relative risk.
Full Size Table
Write to the Help Desk
Copyright © 1993-2026 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA. All rights reserved, including rights relating to text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies. For open-access content, the applicable copyright and licensing terms govern.