Endoscopic cricopharyngeal myotomy (C-POEM) is an evolving, minimally invasive technique for treating cricopharyngeal dysfunction [1, 2], which may result from conditions such as idiopathic cricopharyngeal bar, Parkinson's Disease, or Inclusion Body Myositis. The procedure is technically challenging due to the confined space of the hypopharynx (Figure 1). Traditionally, C-POEM is performed using a standard gastroscope, which has a 9.9 mm outer diameter and a 2.3 mm working channel. With the addition of a conical distal attachment cap, a mucosal incision of approximately 15 mm is typically required to access the submucosal space, further complicating the procedure in anatomically restricted areas. We present a video case demonstrating the use of a next-generation slim therapeutic gastroscope—the Fujifilm EG-840TP—in a successful C-POEM. This scope introduces several important technical improvements: Slimmer outer diameter: 7.9 mm versus 9.9 mm (standard scope), allowing easier maneuverability in the hypopharynx and proximal esophagus; larger working channel: 3.2 mm versus 2.3 mm, enabling the simultaneous use of instruments and suction; smaller mucosal incision required: A 10 mm mucosal incision is sufficient, even with the distal cap in place; and enhanced tip angulation of 210° upward and 160° downward flexion, improving access and precision in tight anatomical spaces (Figure 2). These design enhancements facilitate safer and more efficient dissection, improve procedural control, and reduce tissue trauma. A conical cap (DH-083ST—FujiFilm, Japan) with a 3.5 mm distal stiff section from the tip of the gastroscope and a 7 mm inner diameter of the distal end was also used for the C-POEM. Our case highlights the feasibility, safety, and therapeutic potential of the EG-840TP in upper esophageal interventions [3, 4], suggesting that it may set a new standard for C-POEM and similar endoscopic procedures in narrow anatomical regions.
Niroshan Muwanwella: conceptualization (lead), resources, writing – original draft (lead). Krish Ragunath: conceptualization (supporting), writing – review and editing.
Approval of the research protocol by an Institutional Reviewer Board: None.
Informed consent: Informed consent obtained from patient to publish de-identified endoscopic images and videos.
Registry and the registration no. of the study/trial: None.
Animal studies: None.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Prof Krish Ragunath is an Associate Editor of Digestive Endoscopy.
内镜环咽肌切开术(C-POEM)是一种不断发展的微创技术,用于治疗环咽功能障碍[1,2],这种功能障碍可能由特发性环咽阻滞、帕金森病或包涵体肌炎等疾病引起。由于下咽的狭窄空间,该手术在技术上具有挑战性(图1)。传统上,C-POEM使用标准胃镜进行,其外径为9.9 mm,工作通道为2.3 mm。随着锥形远端附着帽的增加,通常需要大约15mm的粘膜切口才能进入粘膜下空间,这使得解剖受限区域的手术更加复杂。我们展示了一个视频案例,展示了在一个成功的C-POEM中使用新一代超薄治疗胃镜-富士eg - 840tp。该瞄准镜引入了几项重要的技术改进:更细的外径:7.9毫米与9.9毫米(标准瞄准镜)相比,更容易在下咽和食管近端操作;更大的工作通道:3.2 mm vs 2.3 mm,可以同时使用仪器和吸力;需要更小的粘膜切口:10毫米的粘膜切口就足够了,即使远端帽已经到位;提高尖端角度210°向上和160°向下弯曲,提高狭窄解剖空间的接触和精度(图2)。这些设计的改进促进了更安全、更有效的解剖,改善了程序控制,减少了组织创伤。C-POEM也使用锥形帽(DH-083ST-FujiFilm, Japan),其远端僵硬部分距胃镜尖端3.5 mm,远端内径为7 mm。我们的病例强调了EG-840TP在上食管介入治疗中的可行性、安全性和治疗潜力[3,4],这表明它可能为狭窄解剖区域的C-POEM和类似的内镜手术树立新的标准。Niroshan Muwanwella:构思(导),资源,写作-原稿(导)。Krish Ragunath:概念化(支持),写作-审查和编辑。机构审查委员会批准研究方案:无。知情同意:获得患者发布去识别内镜图像和视频的知情同意。注册表及注册编号研究/试验:无。动物实验:没有。作者声明无利益冲突。Krish Ragunath教授是《消化内窥镜》杂志的副主编。
{"title":"Cricopharyngeal Per Oral Endoscopic Myotomy (C-POEM) With a Novel Therapeutic Gastroscope","authors":"Niroshan Muwanwella, Krish Ragunath","doi":"10.1111/den.70003","DOIUrl":"10.1111/den.70003","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Endoscopic cricopharyngeal myotomy (C-POEM) is an evolving, minimally invasive technique for treating cricopharyngeal dysfunction [<span>1, 2</span>], which may result from conditions such as idiopathic cricopharyngeal bar, Parkinson's Disease, or Inclusion Body Myositis. The procedure is technically challenging due to the confined space of the hypopharynx (Figure 1). Traditionally, C-POEM is performed using a standard gastroscope, which has a 9.9 mm outer diameter and a 2.3 mm working channel. With the addition of a conical distal attachment cap, a mucosal incision of approximately 15 mm is typically required to access the submucosal space, further complicating the procedure in anatomically restricted areas. We present a video case demonstrating the use of a next-generation slim therapeutic gastroscope—the Fujifilm EG-840TP—in a successful C-POEM. This scope introduces several important technical improvements: Slimmer outer diameter: 7.9 mm versus 9.9 mm (standard scope), allowing easier maneuverability in the hypopharynx and proximal esophagus; larger working channel: 3.2 mm versus 2.3 mm, enabling the simultaneous use of instruments and suction; smaller mucosal incision required: A 10 mm mucosal incision is sufficient, even with the distal cap in place; and enhanced tip angulation of 210° upward and 160° downward flexion, improving access and precision in tight anatomical spaces (Figure 2). These design enhancements facilitate safer and more efficient dissection, improve procedural control, and reduce tissue trauma. A conical cap (DH-083ST—FujiFilm, Japan) with a 3.5 mm distal stiff section from the tip of the gastroscope and a 7 mm inner diameter of the distal end was also used for the C-POEM. Our case highlights the feasibility, safety, and therapeutic potential of the EG-840TP in upper esophageal interventions [<span>3, 4</span>], suggesting that it may set a new standard for C-POEM and similar endoscopic procedures in narrow anatomical regions.</p><p><b>Niroshan Muwanwella:</b> conceptualization (lead), resources, writing – original draft (lead). <b>Krish Ragunath:</b> conceptualization (supporting), writing – review and editing.</p><p>Approval of the research protocol by an Institutional Reviewer Board: None.</p><p>Informed consent: Informed consent obtained from patient to publish de-identified endoscopic images and videos.</p><p>Registry and the registration no. of the study/trial: None.</p><p>Animal studies: None.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Prof Krish Ragunath is an Associate Editor of Digestive Endoscopy.</p>","PeriodicalId":159,"journal":{"name":"Digestive Endoscopy","volume":"37 11","pages":"1250-1251"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/den.70003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144755256","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>The widespread implementation of screening colonoscopy in recent years has led to a marked increase in detecting small asymptomatic rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) [<span>1</span>]. Accumulating evidence from endoscopic observations, histopathological assessments of resected specimens, and longitudinal clinical follow-up has helped elucidate several risk factors for metastatic potential. These include central depression, tumor size, Ki-67 labeling index, mitotic count, and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) [<span>2, 3</span>]. The current clinical practice guidelines for managing localized rectal NETs demonstrate considerable regional variation, largely reflecting differing interpretations of metastatic risk. Prominent divergences are evident among international guidelines, particularly those issued by the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) [<span>4</span>], National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) [<span>5</span>], and Japan Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (JNETS) [<span>6</span>]. Both the ENETS and NCCN guidelines primarily emphasize tumor size as the principal criterion for determining therapeutic strategy and surveillance protocols. In contrast, the JNETS guidelines advocate a more aggressive approach, even in relatively small-sized lesions. According to Western consensus, rectal NETs measuring 2.0 cm or less are generally considered suitable for local excision, either via endoscopic or transanal techniques. However, tumors exceeding 2.0 cm are regarded as clear indications for radical resection with regional lymphadenectomy. The NCCN, in particular, supports local excision of well-differentiated NETs in the 1.0–2.0 cm range, despite evidence suggesting a non-negligible incidence of lymph node metastasis in this subgroup. Similarly, the ENETS permits endoscopic resection of tumors within the 1.0–2.0 cm range, provided that there is no evidence of muscularis propria invasion or lymph node involvement on imaging. Radical surgical procedures such as total mesorectal excision are reserved for tumors exceeding 2.0 cm or those displaying high-risk pathological features.</p><p>In contrast, the JNETS guidelines recommend radical surgical resection—specifically, proctectomy with regional lymph node dissection—for any rectal NET measuring 1.0 cm or greater. This recommendation also applies to tumors classified as grade 2 (NET G2) according to the World Health Organization classification, neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs), and lesions demonstrating signs of deep submucosal or muscular invasion. In essence, the Japanese criteria for oncologic resection adopt a lower threshold—based on either a tumor size of ≥ 1.0 cm or high histologic grade—reflecting a more precautionary and risk-averse clinical philosophy. These divergences in clinical approach have prompted ongoing debate. The Japanese strategy prioritizes eliminating even a modest risk of occult lymph node metastasis. However, this strategy might result in overtreatment in patients wit
{"title":"Size Matters in Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors: Redefining Risk Thresholds for Surveillance and Management","authors":"Shinya Sugimoto, Hayato Nakagawa","doi":"10.1111/den.70006","DOIUrl":"10.1111/den.70006","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The widespread implementation of screening colonoscopy in recent years has led to a marked increase in detecting small asymptomatic rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) [<span>1</span>]. Accumulating evidence from endoscopic observations, histopathological assessments of resected specimens, and longitudinal clinical follow-up has helped elucidate several risk factors for metastatic potential. These include central depression, tumor size, Ki-67 labeling index, mitotic count, and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) [<span>2, 3</span>]. The current clinical practice guidelines for managing localized rectal NETs demonstrate considerable regional variation, largely reflecting differing interpretations of metastatic risk. Prominent divergences are evident among international guidelines, particularly those issued by the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) [<span>4</span>], National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) [<span>5</span>], and Japan Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (JNETS) [<span>6</span>]. Both the ENETS and NCCN guidelines primarily emphasize tumor size as the principal criterion for determining therapeutic strategy and surveillance protocols. In contrast, the JNETS guidelines advocate a more aggressive approach, even in relatively small-sized lesions. According to Western consensus, rectal NETs measuring 2.0 cm or less are generally considered suitable for local excision, either via endoscopic or transanal techniques. However, tumors exceeding 2.0 cm are regarded as clear indications for radical resection with regional lymphadenectomy. The NCCN, in particular, supports local excision of well-differentiated NETs in the 1.0–2.0 cm range, despite evidence suggesting a non-negligible incidence of lymph node metastasis in this subgroup. Similarly, the ENETS permits endoscopic resection of tumors within the 1.0–2.0 cm range, provided that there is no evidence of muscularis propria invasion or lymph node involvement on imaging. Radical surgical procedures such as total mesorectal excision are reserved for tumors exceeding 2.0 cm or those displaying high-risk pathological features.</p><p>In contrast, the JNETS guidelines recommend radical surgical resection—specifically, proctectomy with regional lymph node dissection—for any rectal NET measuring 1.0 cm or greater. This recommendation also applies to tumors classified as grade 2 (NET G2) according to the World Health Organization classification, neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs), and lesions demonstrating signs of deep submucosal or muscular invasion. In essence, the Japanese criteria for oncologic resection adopt a lower threshold—based on either a tumor size of ≥ 1.0 cm or high histologic grade—reflecting a more precautionary and risk-averse clinical philosophy. These divergences in clinical approach have prompted ongoing debate. The Japanese strategy prioritizes eliminating even a modest risk of occult lymph node metastasis. However, this strategy might result in overtreatment in patients wit","PeriodicalId":159,"journal":{"name":"Digestive Endoscopy","volume":"37 11","pages":"1224-1226"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/den.70006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144735854","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>Gangrenous cholecystitis (GC) is a life-threatening form of acute cholecystitis characterized by full-thickness necrosis of the gallbladder wall. The pathogenesis involves ischemia and vascular compromise, typically resulting from prolonged inflammation, cystic artery obstruction, or elevated intraluminal pressure [<span>1</span>]. Histologically, GC is marked by transmural necrosis, hemorrhaging, and dense neutrophilic infiltration. The gallbladder wall may exhibit complete mucosal necrosis, vascular thrombosis, and, in some cases, intramural abscesses. These features underscore the severity of the disease and its high risk of complications, including perforation and peritonitis.</p><p>Emergency cholecystectomy remains the standard treatment for GC [<span>2</span>]. This is largely because decompression via gallbladder puncture (traditionally through a percutaneous route and more recently via endosonographically created routes) has been associated with a high risk of perforation. The friable wall of a gangrenous gallbladder lacks the structural integrity to secure a catheter, unlike resilient muscular tissue. Once punctured, the fragile cystic wall, which barely maintains its shape under high intraluminal pressure, may collapse irreparably.</p><p>In contrast, endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) offers a non-puncture alternative that could facilitate recovery in selected GC cases. If the gangrenous changes are barely reversible, non-puncture drainage may support conservative healing. Even when irreversible mucosal damage has occurred, the gallbladder may retain its structure following the resolution of inflammation, provided full-thickness necrosis is absent and the muscular layer can just maintain its structural integrity. ETGBD, the only drainage modality that does not involve direct gallbladder puncture, may serve as an alternative in severe cholecystitis cases where other approaches, including surgery, are contraindicated.</p><p>However, ETGBD presents significant technical challenges. A recent meta-analysis has reported a pooled technical success rate of 83% (95% CI: 80.1–85.5; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 29) [<span>3</span>]. In comparison, percutaneous drainage and EUS-guided drainage achieve success rates of 99% and 95%, respectively. Consequently, ETGBD cannot currently replace these more established procedures. Moreover, even if technically successful, ETGBD carries a risk of post-procedural pancreatitis.</p><p>In addition, its clinical success rate is modest. Mohan et al. have reported a pooled clinical success rate of 88% for ETGBD, compared to 89% for percutaneous drainage and 97% for EUS-guided drainage [<span>3</span>]. ETGBD inherits the limitations of both alternatives: irrigation cannot be performed through an external tube (like EUS-guided drainage), and it uses a relatively narrow catheter (like percutaneous drainage) [<span>4</span>].</p><p>Therefore, ETGBD may be most appropriate for patients with contraindi
{"title":"Endoscopic Transpapillary Gallbladder Drainage for Gangrenous Cholecystitis: A Minimally Invasive Approach Under Scrutiny","authors":"Yoshihide Kanno","doi":"10.1111/den.70004","DOIUrl":"10.1111/den.70004","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Gangrenous cholecystitis (GC) is a life-threatening form of acute cholecystitis characterized by full-thickness necrosis of the gallbladder wall. The pathogenesis involves ischemia and vascular compromise, typically resulting from prolonged inflammation, cystic artery obstruction, or elevated intraluminal pressure [<span>1</span>]. Histologically, GC is marked by transmural necrosis, hemorrhaging, and dense neutrophilic infiltration. The gallbladder wall may exhibit complete mucosal necrosis, vascular thrombosis, and, in some cases, intramural abscesses. These features underscore the severity of the disease and its high risk of complications, including perforation and peritonitis.</p><p>Emergency cholecystectomy remains the standard treatment for GC [<span>2</span>]. This is largely because decompression via gallbladder puncture (traditionally through a percutaneous route and more recently via endosonographically created routes) has been associated with a high risk of perforation. The friable wall of a gangrenous gallbladder lacks the structural integrity to secure a catheter, unlike resilient muscular tissue. Once punctured, the fragile cystic wall, which barely maintains its shape under high intraluminal pressure, may collapse irreparably.</p><p>In contrast, endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) offers a non-puncture alternative that could facilitate recovery in selected GC cases. If the gangrenous changes are barely reversible, non-puncture drainage may support conservative healing. Even when irreversible mucosal damage has occurred, the gallbladder may retain its structure following the resolution of inflammation, provided full-thickness necrosis is absent and the muscular layer can just maintain its structural integrity. ETGBD, the only drainage modality that does not involve direct gallbladder puncture, may serve as an alternative in severe cholecystitis cases where other approaches, including surgery, are contraindicated.</p><p>However, ETGBD presents significant technical challenges. A recent meta-analysis has reported a pooled technical success rate of 83% (95% CI: 80.1–85.5; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 29) [<span>3</span>]. In comparison, percutaneous drainage and EUS-guided drainage achieve success rates of 99% and 95%, respectively. Consequently, ETGBD cannot currently replace these more established procedures. Moreover, even if technically successful, ETGBD carries a risk of post-procedural pancreatitis.</p><p>In addition, its clinical success rate is modest. Mohan et al. have reported a pooled clinical success rate of 88% for ETGBD, compared to 89% for percutaneous drainage and 97% for EUS-guided drainage [<span>3</span>]. ETGBD inherits the limitations of both alternatives: irrigation cannot be performed through an external tube (like EUS-guided drainage), and it uses a relatively narrow catheter (like percutaneous drainage) [<span>4</span>].</p><p>Therefore, ETGBD may be most appropriate for patients with contraindi","PeriodicalId":159,"journal":{"name":"Digestive Endoscopy","volume":"37 11","pages":"1231-1232"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/den.70004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144709946","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Greetings From the New Editor-in-Chief of Digestive Endoscopy","authors":"Masayuki Kitano","doi":"10.1111/den.15088","DOIUrl":"10.1111/den.15088","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":159,"journal":{"name":"Digestive Endoscopy","volume":"37 11","pages":"1229-1230"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144709947","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>When confronted with computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) suggesting the neoplastic potential of a polyp, should the clinician trust the CADx? A common assumption is that inexperienced clinicians might benefit from trusting CADx, and that experienced clinicians might not because of already high competence in optical diagnosis [<span>1</span>].</p><p>In this issue of <i>Digestive Endoscopy</i>, Shinozaki et al. [<span>2</span>] compared the diagnostic performance of CADx against both inexperienced and experienced endoscopists by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 studies with 5477 colorectal polyps. The study showed that CADx did not outperform the endoscopists, regardless of their experience level. The pooled sensitivities and specificities were nearly identical between CADx with 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82–0.91) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.78–0.90), respectively, and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83–0.91) and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82–0.92), respectively, for the experienced endoscopists. In another comparison, the pooled sensitivities and specificities were 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82–0.92) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.78–0.88), respectively, for CADx, and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.78–0.90) and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.70–0.83), respectively, for inexperienced endoscopists. Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (SROC) curves with visual inspection were used to estimate heterogeneity, which indicated greater variability in the inexperienced endoscopists. The area under the curve (AUC) for CADx was significantly greater compared to inexperienced endoscopists; however, the overlapping intervals and modest effect size caution against claiming true superiority.</p><p>The relevance of this research lies in its contribution to the framework used to develop clinical guidelines. Subgroup or stratified reviews, such as this, are essential to prevent post hoc speculation on subgroup effects and to increase the certainty of evidence supporting recommendations. By analyzing larger subgroups, we allow for variations in treatment effects to be exposed, thus increasing the precision of the evidence. This approach helps prevent potential biases that could arise from interpreting results based solely on the whole group (endoscopists). The GRADE framework underscores that the strength of any guideline is contingent on the quality of the evidence itself, rather than the authority of experts or researchers involved [<span>3</span>]. By minimizing biases and preventing overenthusiasm combined with underpowered results, we can make informed decisions regarding resource allocation in healthcare. In this context, the findings indicate that the separate use of CADx does not enhance current clinical care and may not warrant further investment. This insight is critical for directing healthcare spending toward interventions that yield greater benefit for the patient.</p><p>We must continue to pursue targeted investigation into the clinical relevance of interventions such as CADx assisting endoscopists [
{"title":"Understanding the Role of Computer-Aided Diagnosis in Colonoscopy","authors":"Natalie Halvorsen, Yuichi Mori","doi":"10.1111/den.70007","DOIUrl":"10.1111/den.70007","url":null,"abstract":"<p>When confronted with computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) suggesting the neoplastic potential of a polyp, should the clinician trust the CADx? A common assumption is that inexperienced clinicians might benefit from trusting CADx, and that experienced clinicians might not because of already high competence in optical diagnosis [<span>1</span>].</p><p>In this issue of <i>Digestive Endoscopy</i>, Shinozaki et al. [<span>2</span>] compared the diagnostic performance of CADx against both inexperienced and experienced endoscopists by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 studies with 5477 colorectal polyps. The study showed that CADx did not outperform the endoscopists, regardless of their experience level. The pooled sensitivities and specificities were nearly identical between CADx with 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82–0.91) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.78–0.90), respectively, and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.83–0.91) and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82–0.92), respectively, for the experienced endoscopists. In another comparison, the pooled sensitivities and specificities were 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82–0.92) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.78–0.88), respectively, for CADx, and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.78–0.90) and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.70–0.83), respectively, for inexperienced endoscopists. Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic (SROC) curves with visual inspection were used to estimate heterogeneity, which indicated greater variability in the inexperienced endoscopists. The area under the curve (AUC) for CADx was significantly greater compared to inexperienced endoscopists; however, the overlapping intervals and modest effect size caution against claiming true superiority.</p><p>The relevance of this research lies in its contribution to the framework used to develop clinical guidelines. Subgroup or stratified reviews, such as this, are essential to prevent post hoc speculation on subgroup effects and to increase the certainty of evidence supporting recommendations. By analyzing larger subgroups, we allow for variations in treatment effects to be exposed, thus increasing the precision of the evidence. This approach helps prevent potential biases that could arise from interpreting results based solely on the whole group (endoscopists). The GRADE framework underscores that the strength of any guideline is contingent on the quality of the evidence itself, rather than the authority of experts or researchers involved [<span>3</span>]. By minimizing biases and preventing overenthusiasm combined with underpowered results, we can make informed decisions regarding resource allocation in healthcare. In this context, the findings indicate that the separate use of CADx does not enhance current clinical care and may not warrant further investment. This insight is critical for directing healthcare spending toward interventions that yield greater benefit for the patient.</p><p>We must continue to pursue targeted investigation into the clinical relevance of interventions such as CADx assisting endoscopists [","PeriodicalId":159,"journal":{"name":"Digestive Endoscopy","volume":"37 11","pages":"1227-1228"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/den.70007","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144709948","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}