Global trends, disparities, and evolution in colonoscopy quality control: A bibliometric analysis from 2004 to 2025

Abstract

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.

Keywords

artificial intelligence / bibliometrics / colonoscopy / quality control / research trend

References

[1] Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024; 74(3): 229-263. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21834

[2] Keum N, Giovannucci E. Global burden of colorectal cancer: emerging trends, risk factors and prevention strategies. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019; 16(12): 713-732. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41575-019-0189-8

[3] Nierengarten MB. Colonoscopy Remains the Gold Standard for Screening Despite Recent Tarnish: Although a Recent Study Seemed to Indicate that Colonoscopies are Not as Effective as once Thought at Detecting Colorectal Cancer, a Closer Look at the Study Clears the Confusion. Wiley Online Library; 2023.

[4] Church JM. Complete colonoscopy: how often? And if not, why not? American Journal of Gastroenterology, (Springer Nature). 1994; 89(4).

[5] Schreuders EH, Ruco A, Rabeneck L, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes. Gut. 2015; 64(10): 1637-1649. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2014-309086

[6] Kang JHE, Evans N, Singh S, Samadder NJ, Lee JK. Systematic review with meta-analysis: the prevalence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers using the world endoscopy organization nomenclature. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2021; 54(10): 1232-1242. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.16622

[7] Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2017; 153(1): 307-323. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2017.05.013

[8] Rembacken B, Hassan C, Riemann J, et al. Quality in screening colonoscopy: position statement of the European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE). Endoscopy. 2012; 44(10): 957-968. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1325686

[9] Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015; 110(1): 72-90. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2014.385

[10] Tollivoro TA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Index colonoscopy-related risk factors for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019; 89(1): 168-176.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2018.08.023

[11] Lu Z, Zhang L, Yao L, et al. Assessment of the role of artificial intelligence in the association between time of day and colonoscopy quality. JAMA Netw Open. 2023; 6(1):e2253840. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.53840

[12] May FP, Shaukat A. State of the science on quality indicators for colonoscopy and how to achieve them. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020; 115(8): 1183-1190. https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000000622

[13] Donthu N, Kumar S, Mukherjee D, Pandey N, Lim WM. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res. 2021; 133: 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070

[14] Öztürk O, Kocaman R, Kanbach DK. How to design bibliometric research: an overview and a framework proposal. Rev Manag Sci. 2024; 18(11): 3333-3361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00738-0

[15] AlRyalat SAS, Malkawi LW, Momani SM. Comparing bibliometric analysis using PubMed, Scopus, and web of science databases. JoVE J. 2019(152):e58494. https://doi.org/10.3791/58494-v

[16] Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, scopus, web of science, and google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008; 22(2): 338-342. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.07-9492lsf

[17] Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2005; 102(46): 16569-16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102

[18] Chen C. CiteSpace II: detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2006; 57(3): 359-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317

[19] Van Eck N, Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 2009; 84(2): 523-538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

[20] Hassan-Montero Y, De-Moya-Anegón F, Guerrero-Bote VP. SCImago graphica: a new tool for exploring and visually communicating data. Profesional de la información. 2022; 31(5):e310502. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2022.sep.02

[21] Aria M, Cuccurullo C. Bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of informetrics. 2017; 11(4): 959-975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007

[22] Neyeloff JL, Fuchs SC, Moreira LB. Meta-analyses and forest plots using a microsoft excel spreadsheet: step-by-step guide focusing on descriptive data analysis. BMC Res Notes. 2012; 5: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-5-52

[23] Bornmann L, Daniel HD. What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. J Doc. 2008; 64(1): 45-80. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844150

[24] Aumüller D, Rahm E. Affiliation analysis of database publications. ACM SIGMOD Record. 2011; 40(1): 26-31. https://doi.org/10.1145/2007206.2007214

[25] Chen G, Xiao L. Selecting publication keywords for domain analysis in bibliometrics: a comparison of three methods. J Informetr. 2016; 10(1): 212-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.01.006

[26] Seale C, Charteris-Black J. Keyword analysis: a new tool for qualitative research. In: The SAGE handbook of qualitative methods in health research; 2010: 536-665.

[27] Cross C, Oppenheim C. A genre analysis of scientific abstracts. J Doc. 2006; 62(4): 428-446. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410610700953

[28] Eyre-Walker A, Stoletzki N. The assessment of science: the relative merits of post-publication review, the impact factor, and the number of citations. PLoS Biol. 2013; 11(10):e1001675. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001675

[29] Fontelo P, Liu F. A review of recent publication trends from top publishing countries. Syst Rev. 2018; 7: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0819-1

[30] Joshi MA. Bibliometric indicators for evaluating the quality of scientific publications. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2011; 15(2): 258-262. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1525

[31] Kumar S. Co-authorship networks: a review of the literature. Aslib J Inf Manag. 2015; 67(1): 55-73. https://doi.org/10.1108/ajim-09-2014-0116

[32] Radhakrishnan S, Erbis S, Isaacs JA, Kamarthi S. Novel keyword co-occurrence network-based methods to foster systematic reviews of scientific literature. PLoS One. 2017; 12(3):e0172778. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172778

[33] Gazni A, Sugimoto CR, Didegah F. Mapping world scientific collaboration: authors, institutions, and countries. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2012; 63(2): 323-335. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21688

[34] Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014; 370(14): 1298-1306. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1309086

[35] Kudo Se, Mori Y, Misawa M, et al. Artificial intelligence and colonoscopy: current status and future perspectives. Dig Endosc. 2019; 31(4): 363-371. https://doi.org/10.1111/den.13340

[36] Aslinia F, Uradomo L, Steele A, Greenwald BD, Raufman JP. Quality assessment of colonoscopic cecal intubation: an analysis of 6 years of continuous practice at a university hospital. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006; 101(4): 721-731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00494.x

[37] Groth S, Rex DK, Rösch T, Hoepffner N. High cecal intubation rates with a new computer-assisted colonoscope: a feasibility study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011; 106(6): 1075-1080. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2011.52

[38] Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, Johanson JF, Greenlaw RL. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355(24): 2533-2541. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa055498

[39] Tajbakhsh N, Shin JY, Gurudu SR, et al. Convolutional neural networks for medical image analysis: full training or fine tuning? IEEE Trans Med Imag. 2016; 35(5): 1299-1312. https://doi.org/10.1109/tmi.2016.2535302

[40] Shaukat A, Kahi CJ, Burke CA, Rabeneck L, Sauer BG, Rex DK. ACG clinical guidelines: colorectal cancer screening 2021. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021; 116(3): 458-479. https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000001122

[41] Lui TK, Tsui VW, Leung WK. Accuracy of artificial intelligence–assisted detection of upper GI lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020; 92(4): 821-830.e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.034

[42] Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006; 101(4): 873-885. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00673.x

[43] Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362(19): 1795-1803. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa0907667

[44] Repici A, Badalamenti M, Maselli R, et al. Efficacy of real-time computer-aided detection of colorectal neoplasia in a randomized trial. Gastroenterology. 2020; 159(2): 512-520.e7. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2020.04.062

[45] Zhao S, Wang S, Pan P, et al. Magnitude, risk factors, and factors associated with adenoma miss rate of tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2019; 156(6): 1661-1674.e11. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2019.01.260

[46] Wang P, Berzin TM, Glissen Brown JR, et al. Real-time automatic detection system increases colonoscopic polyp and adenoma detection rates: a prospective randomised controlled study. Gut. 2019; 68(10): 1813-1819. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2018-317500

[47] González-Alcaide G, Valderrama-Zurián JC, Aleixandre-Benavent R. The impact factor in non-english-speaking countries. Scientometrics. 2012; 92(2): 297-311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0692-y

[48] Xu R, Wunsch D. Survey of clustering algorithms. IEEE Trans Neural Network. 2005; 16(3): 645-678. https://doi.org/10.1109/tnn.2005.845141

[49] Sherman RE, Anderson SA, Dal Pan GJ, et al. Real-world evidence—what is it and what can it tell us. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375(23): 2293-2297. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsb1609216

[50] Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D. A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open. 2013; 3(1):e001570. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001570

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2025 The Author(s). Journal of Intelligent Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Tianjin University.