Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41525195›Full record

SynthesisJournal of food and drug analysis2025

Economic evaluation of AI-assisted technologies in healthcare: A systematic review.

Wen-Tung Wu, Yi-Wen Chao, Tsung-Kun Lin, Ching-Kuo Huang, Ping-Hsuan Hsieh

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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 · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

5 authors.

Wen-Tung WuDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
Yi-Wen ChaoCollege of Pharmacy, National Defense Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
Tsung-Kun LinDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Tri-Service General Hospital, National Defense Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
Ching-Kuo HuangDepartment of Pharmacy, Tri-Service General Hospital Songshan Branch, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
Ping-Hsuan HsiehCollege of Pharmacy, National Defense Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceDelivery of Health CareCost-Benefit AnalysisCost-Effectiveness AnalysisHumansIntelligent Systems

Identifiers

PMID41525195
PMCPMC12795340

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.