Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37971984›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Cost-effectiveness analysis of artificial intelligence-based diabetic retinopathy screening in rural China based on the Markov model.

Huilin Li, Guanyan Li, Na Li, Changyan Liu, Ziyou Yuan, Qingyue Gao, Shaofeng Hao, Shengfu Fan, Jianzhou Yang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Diabetic retinopathy-recommendations for screening and treatment.Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Huilin LiDepartment of Ophthalmology, Heji Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, 046000, China.
Guanyan LiPostgraduate Department, Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, 046000, China.
Na LiPostgraduate Department, Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, 046000, China.
Changyan LiuPostgraduate Department, Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, 046000, China.
Ziyou YuanPostgraduate Department, Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, 046000, China.
Qingyue GaoPostgraduate Department, Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, 046000, China.
Shaofeng HaoDepartment of Ophthalmology, Heji Hospital Affiliated to Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, 046000, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9214-1019
Shengfu FanDepartment of Foreign Languages, Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, 046000, China.
Jianzhou YangDepartment of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Changzhi Medical College, Changzhi, 046000, China.
Changzhi Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of different diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening strategies in rural regions in China by using a Markov model to make health economic evaluations. In this study, we determined the structure of a Markov model according to the research objectives, which required parameters collected through field investigation and literature retrieval. After perfecting the model with parameters and assumptions, we developed a Markov decision analytic model according to the natural history of DR in TreeAge Pro 2011. For this model, we performed Markov cohort and cost-effectiveness analyses to simulate the probabilistic distributions of different developments in DR and the cumulative cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence (AI)-based screening and ophthalmologist screening for DR in the rural population with diabetes mellitus (DM) in China. Additionally, a model-based health economic evaluation was performed by using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Last, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the stability of the results. From the perspective of the health system, compared with no screening, AI-based screening cost more (the incremental cost was 37,257.76 RMB (approximately 5,211.31 US dollars)), but the effect was better (the incremental utility was 0.33). Compared with AI-based screening, the cost of ophthalmologist screening was higher (the incremental cost was 14,886.76 RMB (approximately 2,070.19 US dollars)), and the effect was worse (the incremental utility was -0.31). Compared with no screening, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of AI-based DR screening was 112,146.99 RMB (15,595.47 US dollars)/QALY, which was less than the threshold for the ICER (< 3 times the per capita gross domestic product (GDP), 217,341.00 RMB (30,224.03 US dollars)). Therefore, AI-based screening was cost-effective, which meant that the increased cost for each additional quality-adjusted life year was merited. Compared with no screening and ophthalmologist screening for DR, AI-based screening was the most cost-effective, which not only saved costs but also improved the quality of life of diabetes patients. Popularizing AI-based DR screening strategies in rural areas would be economically effective and feasible and can provide a scientific basis for the further formulation of early screening programs for diabetic retinopathy.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic RetinopathyArtificial IntelligenceChinaCost-Benefit AnalysisCost-Effectiveness AnalysisHumansMarkov ChainsMass ScreeningQuality-Adjusted Life YearsQuality of LifeRural Population

Identifiers

PMID37971984
PMCPMC10653408
OpenAlexW4388728436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.