Reporting standards to support cost-effectiveness evaluations of AI-driven health care.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Current state of research and future developments of artificial intelligence in pain diagnosis and treatment.Journal of translational medicine · 2026
   Review
2. medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
   Article
3. Digital technologies in enhancing hierarchical vision health management for the next 1000 days of children's life: multi-component economic evaluation.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025
   Article
4. Effect of artificial intelligence driven therapeutic lifestyle changes (AI-TLC) intervention on health behavior and health among obesity pregnant women in China: a randomized controlled trial protocol.Frontiers in public health · 2025
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations.2022

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as