ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024
Population impact and cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence-based diabetic retinopathy screening in people living with diabetes in Australia: a cost effectiveness analysis.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic evaluation of AI-assisted technologies in healthcare: A systematic review.Journal of food and drug analysis · 2025Pooled it
- Opportunities, challenges, and requirements for Artificial Intelligence (AI) implementation in Primary Health Care (PHC): a systematic review.BMC primary care · 2025Pooled it
- Tear-fluid-derived biomarkers of ocular complications in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Current Trends in AI and Eye Disease Diagnostics.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Review
- Screening for diabetic retinopathy with artificial intelligence in a primary care setting: a comparative cost analysis.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Impact of artificial intelligence on the availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality of ophthalmic disease screening services: a scoping review.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Reallocating Work in Ophthalmology: A Health Economic Agenda in Anticipation of a Future Workforce Shortfall.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- The Burden of Delayed Diabetic Retinopathy Management and Use of Artificial Intelligence-Driven Screening Tools: A Systematic Literature Review.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Review
- Prospective real-world implementation of deep learning systems in healthcare: a systematic review guided by implementation science.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Can Multimodal Large Language Models Diagnose Diabetic Retinopathy from Fundus Photos? A Quantitative Evaluation.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- The AI-Augmented Ophthalmologist for chronic ocular diseases: a patient-centered framework for human-AI collaboration.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Diabetic retinal disease.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence Enabled Lifestyle Medicine in Diabetes Care: A Narrative Review.American journal of lifestyle medicine · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence for early detection of diabetes mellitus complications via retinal imaging.Journal of diabetes and metabolic disorders · 2025Review
- Healthcare providers' perceptions of artificial intelligence in diabetes care: A cross-sectional study in China.International journal of nursing sciences · 2025Article
- Implementation of A New, Mobile Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Model Incorporating Artificial Intelligence in Remote Western Australia.The Australian journal of rural health · 2025Article
- Advancing Diabetic Retinopathy Screening: A Systematic Review of Artificial Intelligence and Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography Innovations.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Cost-effectiveness of AI for pediatric diabetic eye exams from a health system perspective.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- AI applications in HIV research: advances and future directions.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
- Future horizons in diabetes: integrating AI and personalized care.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an artificial intelligence-(AI) based diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening system in the primary care setting for both non-Indigenous and Indigenous people living with diabetes in Australia. Methods: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis between January 01, 2022 and August 01, 2023. A decision-analytic Markov model was constructed to simulate DR progression in a population of 1,197,818 non-Indigenous and 65,160 Indigenous Australians living with diabetes aged ≥20 years over 40 years. From a healthcare provider's perspective, we compared current practice to three primary care AI-based screening scenarios-(A) substitution of current manual grading, (B) scaling up to patient acceptance level, and (C) achieving universal screening. Study results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), benefit-cost ratio (BCR), and net monetary benefits (NMB). A Willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of AU$50,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and a discount rate of 3.5% were adopted in this study. Findings: With the status quo, the non-Indigenous diabetic population was projected to develop 96,269 blindness cases, resulting in AU$13,039.6 m spending on DR screening and treatment during 2020-2060. In comparison, all three intervention scenarios were effective and cost-saving. In particular, if a universal screening program was to be implemented (Scenario C), it would prevent 38,347 blindness cases, gain 172,090 QALYs and save AU$595.8 m, leading to a BCR of 3.96 and NMB of AU$9,200 m. Similar findings were also reported in the Indigenous population. With the status quo, 3,396 Indigenous individuals would develop blindness, which would cost the health system AU$796.0 m during 2020-2060. All three intervention scenarios were cost-saving for the Indigenous population. Notably, universal AI-based DR screening (Scenario C) would prevent 1,211 blindness cases and gain 9,800 QALYs in the Indigenous population, leading to a saving of AU$19.2 m with a BCR of 1.62 and NMB of AU$509 m. Interpretation: Our findings suggest that implementing AI-based DR screening in primary care is highly effective and cost-saving in both Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations. Funding: This project received grant funding from the Australian Government: the National Critical Research Infrastructure Initiative, Medical Research Future Fund (MRFAI00035) and the NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP1175405). The contents of the published material are solely the responsibility of the Administering Institution, a participating institution or individual authors and do not reflect the views of the NHMRC. This work was supported by the Global STEM Professorship Scheme (P0046113), the Fundamental Research Funds of the State Key Laboratory of Ophthalmology, Project of Investigation on Health Status of Employees in Financial Industry in Guangzhou, China (Z012014075). The Centre for Eye Research Australia receives Operational Infrastructure Support from the Victorian State Government. W.H. is supported by the Melbourne Research Scholarship established by the University of Melbourne. The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.