ReviewCureus2025
The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Financial Systems in Healthcare: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluation Studies.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Infectious Disease Care: Selected Applications in Tuberculosis, Sepsis, and Antimicrobial Stewardship.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The economic imperative of artificial intelligence in maternal and neonatal health: a review of evaluation benefits, frameworks, challenges, future perspectives, and limitations.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Orthopaedics: Clinical Performance, Limitations, and Translational Readiness-A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in surgical decision-making across the perioperative continuum: a scoping review.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in modern clinical practice (Review).Medicine internationalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare systems has emerged as a transformative approach to addressing rising costs and inefficiencies. While AI applications show promise in improving financial outcomes, the evidence remains fragmented due to methodological heterogeneity and inconsistent reporting. This systematic review aims to synthesize economic evaluations of AI in healthcare, assessing its impact on cost savings, efficiency gains, and cost-effectiveness while identifying gaps in the current literature. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we conducted a systematic search across five databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and EconLit), identifying 341 records. After removing duplicates and screening for eligibility, six studies met the inclusion criteria, which focused on AI-driven economic evaluations in healthcare settings. Data were extracted using a standardized form, and methodological quality was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) tool. A narrative synthesis was performed due to the heterogeneity of study designs and outcomes. The included studies demonstrated significant cost savings, such as reducing unnecessary diagnostic tests by 45,247 in 45 days and lowering Medicaid expenditures by up to United States Dollar (USD) 12.9 million annually. AI also improved cost-effectiveness, though some trade-offs in clinical outcomes were noted. However, methodological limitations were prevalent, including unclear perspectives, a lack of sensitivity analyses, and insufficient discussion of ethical implications. Risk of bias assessment revealed that only three of the six studies had low bias, while others exhibited moderate bias due to these limitations. AI holds substantial potential to enhance financial sustainability in healthcare, but the evidence base is limited by methodological inconsistencies and a lack of long-term evaluations. Standardized frameworks for economic assessments of AI are urgently needed to ensure reliable, equitable, and scalable implementations. Future research should prioritize longitudinal studies, stakeholder engagement, and transparent reporting to bridge the gap between AI innovation and healthcare system priorities.
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.