SynthesisJournal of food and drug analysis2025
Economic evaluation of AI-assisted technologies in healthcare: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of food and drug analysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Concerns of Using Large Language Models in Health Care Research and Practice: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Assessing the Value for Money of AI-Assisted Technologies for Older Adults: Scoping Review of Economic Evaluations.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- AI-driven multimodal retinal imaging for early detection and risk stratification of vascular and neurodegenerative diseases.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- A new era of precision diagnosis and treatment for lung cancer: artificial intelligence-driven multimodal data integration and clinical applications.Cell death & disease · 2026Review
- Precision cardiovascular medicine with big data and AI.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Review
- AI-driven diagnosis of pneumococcal infections in children-a call for primary-care focused and a coherent evidence base.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Review
- Digital pathology and artificial intelligence in breast and gynecologic oncology: from molecular prediction to multimodal integration.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are increasingly integrated into healthcare, yet their economic value remains uncertain. Traditional economic evaluation methods may not adequately capture the unique features of AI, including dynamic model evolution, scalability, and broader societal impacts. This systematic review synthesized existing evidence on the cost-effectiveness of AI-based healthcare interventions and assessed the methodological rigor of published studies. A comprehensive search identified health economic evaluations of AI applications published between September 2019 and March 2025, following PRISMA and SWiM guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42025641230). Eligible studies were full economic evaluations comparing AI-based interventions with non-AI alternatives, and data were extracted on study characteristics, analytical methods, decision-analytic models, perspectives, outcomes, and AI-specific costs. Methodological quality was evaluated using the CHEERS checklist. A total of 52 studies from 15 countries were included, most published after 2020, focusing on diabetic retinopathy screening, cancer detection, and cardiovascular disease applications. Cost-utility analysis was the predominant method (79%), followed by cost-effectiveness analysis (15%). Nearly all studies (98%) concluded that AI-based strategies were cost-effective, cost-beneficial, or cost-saving. However, reporting of AI-specific costs was inconsistent, while over 90% of studies detailed expenses such as software licensing, per-test charges, or maintenance fees, some omitted cost information entirely, limiting comparability. Overall, AI-based healthcare interventions are generally reported as cost-effective, but methodological heterogeneity, incomplete cost reporting, and potential publication bias constrain the reliability and comparability of current evidence. Standardized economic evaluation frameworks that incorporate comprehensive cost structures and account for the evolving nature of AI are urgently needed.
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.