Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Bibliometric analysis reveals shifts in colonoscopy quality control and highlights disparities in colorectal cancer screening.
Colonoscopy underpins colorectal cancer prevention, yet global perspectives on quality‐control research are fragmented. We provide a systematic, AI‐focused bibliometric overview and map thematic shifts in this field. We retrieved 1390 English‐language articles (January 2004–March 2025) from the Web of Science Core Collection, selected for curated citation data and compatibility with bibliometric mapping tools. Relevance was verified manually using prespecified criteria, and duplicates were removed. CiteSpace, VOSviewer, SCImago Graphica, Biblioshiny, and Microsoft Excel were used to analyze co‐authorship networks, geographic and institutional productivity, journal influence, keyword evolution, and thematic clusters. Publication output increased steadily, accelerating after 2015. The United States led in volume and citation influence, whereas China ranked among the top five with the fastest post‐2015 growth but lower citation density and collaboration centrality. Hotspots shifted from procedural metrics toward AI‐assisted polyp detection, optimization of adenoma detection rate, and real‐time quality monitoring. Author and institutional networks were moderately centralized with limited international integration. Colonoscopy quality control is moving from conventional, single‐parameter indicators to integrated, AI‐enabled quality frameworks. Regional imbalances, fragmented collaborations, and gaps in clinical translation persist. Coordinated, multicenter research across regions has the potential to accelerate quality improvement in routine endoscopy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jiaxin Li (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: