Search

Introduction: Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analysis have demonstrated improved adenoma detection rate (ADR) for colonoscopy with artificial intelligence (AI) compared with high-definition (HD) colonoscopy without AI. We aimed to perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of all RCTs to assess the impact of AI compared with other endoscopic interventions aimed at increasing ADR such as distal attachment devices, dye-based/virtual chromoendoscopy, water-based techniques, and balloon-assisted devices., Methods: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane was performed through May 6, 2022, to include RCTs comparing ADR for any endoscopic intervention mentioned above. Network meta-analysis was conducted using a frequentist approach and random effects model. Relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were calculated for proportional outcome., Results: A total of 94 RCTs with 61,172 patients (mean age 59.1±5.2 y, females 45.8%) and 20 discrete study interventions were included. Network meta-analysis demonstrated significantly improved ADR for AI compared with autofluorescence imaging (RR: 1.33, CI: 1.06 to 1.66), dye-based chromoendoscopy (RR: 1.22, CI: 1.06 to 1.40), endocap (RR: 1.32, CI: 1.17 to 1.50), endocuff (RR: 1.19, CI: 1.04 to 1.35), endocuff vision (RR: 1.26, CI: 1.13 to 1.41), endoring (RR: 1.30, CI: 1.10 to 1.52), flexible spectral imaging color enhancement (RR: 1.26, CI: 1.09 to 1.46), full-spectrum endoscopy (RR: 1.40, CI: 1.19 to 1.65), HD (RR: 1.41, CI: 1.28 to 1.54), linked color imaging (RR: 1.21, CI: 1.08 to 1.36), narrow band imaging (RR: 1.33, CI: 1.18 to 1.48), water exchange (RR: 1.22, CI: 1.06 to 1.42), and water immersion (RR: 1.47, CI: 1.19 to 1.82)., Conclusions: AI demonstrated significantly improved ADR when compared with most endoscopic interventions. Future RCTs directly assessing these associations are encouraged., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background Aims: Preventative care plays an important role in maintaining health in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aimed to assess the overall quality, strength, and transparency of conflicts among guidelines on preventative care in IBD., Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in multiple databases to identify all guidelines pertaining to preventative care in IBD in April 2021. All guidelines were reviewed for the transparency of conflicts of interest and funding, recommendation quality and strength, external guideline review, patient voice inclusion, and plan for update-as per Institute of Medicine standards. In addition, recommendations and their quality were compared between societies., Results: Fifteen distinct societies and a total of 89 recommendations were included. Not all guidelines provided recommendations on the key aspects of preventative care in IBD-such as vaccinations, cancer prevention, stress reduction, and diet/exercise. Sixty-seven percent of guidelines reported on conflicts of interest, 20% underwent external review, and 27% included patient representation. In all, 6.7%, 21.3%, and 71.9% of recommendations were based on high, moderate, and low-quality evidence, respectively. Twenty-seven percent, 23.6%, and 49.4% of recommendations were strong, weak/conditional, and did not provide a strength, respectively. The proportion of high-quality evidence ( P =0.28) and strong recommendations ( P =0.41) did not significantly differ across societies., Conclusions: Many guidelines do not provide recommendations on key aspects of preventative care in IBD. As over 70% of recommendations are based on low-quality evidence, further studies on preventative care in IBD are warranted to improve the overall quality of evidence., Competing Interests: A systematic literature search was performed in multiple databases to identify all guidelines pertaining to preventative care in IBD in April 2021. All guidelines were reviewed for the transparency of conflicts of interest and funding, recommendation quality and strength, external guideline review, patient voice inclusion, and plan for update—as per Institute of Medicine standards. In addition, recommendations and their quality were compared between societies. Fifteen distinct societies and a total of 89 recommendations were included. Not all guidelines provided recommendations on the key aspects of preventative care in IBD—such as vaccinations, cancer prevention, stress reduction, and diet/exercise. Sixty-seven percent of guidelines reported on conflicts of interest, 20% underwent external review, and 27% included patient representation. In all, 6.7%, 21.3%, and 71.9% of recommendations were based on high, moderate, and low-quality evidence, respectively. Twenty-seven percent, 23.6%, and 49.4% of recommendations were strong, weak/conditional, and did not provide a strength, respectively. The proportion of high-quality evidence ( P =0.28) and strong recommendations ( P =0.41) did not significantly differ across societies., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)