Skip to main content

Landscape and challenges in economic evaluations of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a systematic review of methodology



The potential for artificial intelligence (AI) to transform healthcare cannot be ignored, and the development of AI technologies has increased significantly over the past decade. Furthermore, healthcare systems are under tremendous pressure, and efficient allocation of scarce healthcare resources is vital to ensure value for money. Health economic evaluations (HEEs) can be used to obtain information about cost-effectiveness. The literature acknowledges that the conduct of such evaluations differs between medical technologies (MedTechs) and pharmaceuticals, and poor quality evaluations can provide misleading results. This systematic review seeks to map the evidence on the general methodological quality of HEEs for AI technologies to identify potential areas which can be subject to quality improvements. We used the 35-item checklist by Drummond and Jefferson and four additional checklist domains proposed by Terricone et al. to assess the methodological quality of full HEEs of interventions that include AI.


We identified 29 studies for analysis. The included studies had higher completion scores for items related to study design than for items related to data collection and analysis and interpretation of results. However, none of the studies addressed MedTech-specific items.


There was a concerningly low number of full HEEs relative to the number of AI publications, however the trend is that the number of studies per year is increasing. Mapping the evidence of the methodological quality of HEEs of AI shows a need to improve the quality in particular the use of proxy measures as outcome, reporting, and interpretation of the ICER.

Peer Review reports


The rapid adoption of medical technologies (MedTechs), including artificial intelligence (AI) solutions, in healthcare is consuming valuable resources. However, knowledge about their cost-effectiveness is limited [1]. AI in healthcare is often used as decision support, and its effect on clinical outcomes can be mediated by clinicians’. Consequently, the academic discipline of validating decision support systems as standard prediction models may be insufficient [2, 3]. Therefore, clinical intervention studies on effect and cost-effectiveness are warranted. The academic discipline of health economic evaluations (HEE) focuses on how scarce healthcare resources can be efficiently allocated to maximise health [4]. Such evaluations aim to inform decision-makers about cost-effective courses of action when comparing two or more interventions [4]. The methodological framework used for estimating the cost-effectiveness of pharmaceuticals is well established and adopted by the industry, regulatory bodies, and in research. The results from such analyses are often used in prioritising and health technology assessment processes [5].

New technologies are developed and constantly introducing new treatment paradigms. Studies reflect on how cost-effectiveness can be impacted by temporal learning curve differences, continuous product modifications, dynamic pricing, and how adoption often requires substantial investments and re-organisation, which are distinctive characteristics frequently related to MedTechs, including AI [6, 7]. In general, AI performs different compared to devices and pharmaceuticals since they are purely data driven non-invasive technologies.

AI shows the potential to promote health in diverse disciplines, such as the development of genetic medicine, diagnostics, and predictive analytics. Its development trend is strong, with the number of new AI technologies exceeding the number of new pharmaceuticals in 2020 [8, 9]. Current guidelines recommends that AI applications are evaluated almost similar to pharmaceuticals [2] . However, given the nature of AI, the evaluation of such applications are traditionally reduced to assessing predictive performance [10, 11]. Unsurprisingly, a systematic review reported that the evidence for AI’s cost-effectiveness in healthcare is limited and based on relatively few evaluations (n = 20) compared to the total number of studies describing AI in healthcare, which was 120,000 for 2019 alone [1, 12]. Furthermore, 50% of HEEs did not report details on the analytic method, model assumptions, or characterising uncertainty, and the reported outcomes predominantly focused on costs [1]. Given the differences between evaluating pharmaceuticals and MedTech’s and the rapid development of AI solutions, conducting high-quality economic evaluations is critical [13]. The worst-case scenario is that the primary purpose of conducting an HEE is undermined and misguided. This systematic review seeks to map the evidence of the general methodological quality of HEEs for AI technologies. This is done by screening the scientific literature, which evaluates cost-effectiveness of AI interventions and assessing the methodological quality using the 35-item checklist by Drummond and Jefferson and four additional checklist domains proposed by Terricone et al. [14, 15]. The result from the study is sought to inform decision-makers about the current landscape of the methodological quality of recent published studies and raise the awareness of domains which can be subject to quality improvements.



We systematically reviewed the methodology for full HEEs of clinical interventions for AI implementations in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-guidelines (PRISMA) [16].

Search strategy

A systematic literature search was performed in the Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases based on the recommendations for systematic reviews of economic evaluations by Ghislaine et al. [17]. The search included peer-reviewed, full-text studies published within the last five years, between 1 January 2017 and 6 March 2022, and updated until 1 September 2023. Relevant studies with the following health economic terms in their abstract or title were identified: ‘economic evaluation’ OR ‘cost-effectiveness’ OR ‘cost-utility’ OR ‘cost-benefit’. Search terms for AI were: ‘artificial intelligence’ OR ‘machine learning’ OR ‘deep learning’ OR ‘decision support systems’. Where possible, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms were used. A pilot test was conducted to assess whether the databases’ search filters could further limit the search. Since they excluded already-known studies, a broad search strategy was used. The full search query for each database, number of hits, and access date are provided in the Supplementary Material. After conducting the final search, duplicates were automatically removed first in Endnote and then by manual comparison of title, journal, author, and publication year in

Inclusion and exclusion criterions

Only clinical intervention studies were included. These studies were eligible for inclusion if they included at least one comparator based on AI and conducted at least one full HEE. A full HEE was defined by Drummond et al. as “a comparative analysis of alternative courses of action in terms of both their costs and consequences” and comprises cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), cost-utility analyses (CUAs), and cost-benefit analyses (CBAs) [4]. The measure of effect differs between the three types of analyses, however, the methodological approach for assessment is the same, and therefore appropriate to apply across disease areas. Early-stage HEEs were excluded to avoid misleading results since they require adjustments before final cost-effectiveness estimation. The articles’ language was restricted to English and Danish.

Selection of sources of evidence

Two of the authors (NK and AWHK) conducted the screening of abstracts and assessment of study eligibility. The two authors screened independently and blinded from one another using [18]. Duplicate records were removed automatically prior to screening using Endnote and Abstracts were accepted for full text assessment if both authors independently agreed to include and removed from further assessment if both authors independently agreed to exclude. Situations where the two authors disagreed or one or both authors were in doubt was handled by discussion until a consensus was reached. If a consensus could not be reached the paper was included for full-text assessment. The final inclusion of studies was determined after in-dept reading of full texts against inclusion criteria. Once more, any disagreements were discussed until a consensus was reached.

Data extraction

Extraction of data was done independently by two authors (NK and AWHK). A data collection spreadsheet was developed, encompassing an extensive process of testing to ascertain the accuracy of data extraction. Through a series of iterative stages, this testing formed the final standardized data collection template. Furthermore, comprehensive discussions were conducted, leading to a consensus among reviewers regarding the terminology and definitions to be employed. Additionally, each individual item on the checklist from Drummond et al. was subjected to detailed inspection, along with the supplementary document providing elaboration for each checklist item. The following study characteristics are reported: author, year, country, objective, clinical domain, and self-reported type of AI intervention term. Furthermore, we extracted the studies’ health economic characteristics: settings, study perspective(s), evaluation type, decision-analytic model (DAM) or alongside clinical trial (ACL), primary outcome measure, HEE type, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), cost-effective alternative, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). NK and AWHK independently extracted all data.

Quality assessment

Quality assessment was conducted following carefully selected checklists. The checklists were chosen after reviewing 13 identified checklists [19, 20]. The criteria for the checklist included applicability to full HEEs based on ACL and DAM and to assessment of both CEA, CUA and CBA. The Drummond 35-item checklist matched these criteria [14]. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions also recommends this checklist for critically appraising methodological quality [21]. Each item was interpreted as described by Drummond et al. [14]. The checklist comprises three categories: study design (items 1–7), data collection (items 8–21), and analysis and interpretation of results (items 22–35). Items are completed using a ‘yes’, ‘no’, ‘cannot tell’, or ‘not applicable’ scale [14]. We also identified and added four supplementary items suggested as relevant for MedTechs [15]. The results for the supplementary items were reported similarly to Drummond’s checklist, with the answers recorded as ‘formal’, ‘substantial’, or ‘not stated’ [15].


A total of 13.319 records were identified. After duplicate removal, 7459 unique records were retained for further review. Three systematic reviews were identified for snowballing, which did not lead to the inclusion of additional studies [1, 13, 22]. In all, 7420 studies did not meet the inclusion criteria for full text screening. Forthy studies were subjected to full-text screening, of which thirteen were subsequently excluded since they did not meet the criteria. The excluded studies were cost-minimisation analyses, were claiming to be CEAs but only included costs, or were unavailable in English or Danish. Details are provided in Fig. 1. In all, 27 studies are identified and the included study by Rossi et al. encompassed three unique HEEs, which we assessed independently. Therefore, 17 HEEs were assessed from the 15 records identified [23].

Fig. 1
figure 1

A PRISMA chart of the identification, screening, and inclusion of full-text records

Studies’ general characteristics

A general overview of the study design is provided in Table 1. We identified 8 (28%) studies published in 2023, 13 studies (45%) published in 2022, five (17%) in 2021, only one (3%) in 2019, 2017, and 2020. No studies were identified in 2018. Ten HEEs (34%) were conducted in the US, three (10%) in Germany and China, two (7%) in the UK, and 11 (38%) in other countries. Eleven (38%) HEEs reported the generic AI term to describe the AI technology, six studies (21%) used convolutional neural network (CNN) or machine learning (ML), and five studies (17%) uses deep learning (DL), and one study (3%) reports using an artificial neural network.

Table 1 General characteristics of the included HEEs (n = 29)

Studies’ health economic characteristics

A general overview of health economic features is provided in Table 2. Remarkably, 13 studies (45%) did not report information on study settings. Regarding study perspectives, healthcare (n = 13, 45%) and payer perspectives (n = 7, 24%) predominated, where three studies (10%) use a combination of perspectives, and one (3%) uses a family perspective. For HEE types the CUA (n = 19, 65%) is predominant compared with CEA (n = 9, 31%), notably from the year 2023 and forth only CUA was used. The Markov model (n = 20, 69%) is the preferred method to analyse of cost-effectiveness, and six HEEs (21%) used a combination of decision trees and Markov models. Four HEEs (14%) used ACLs, which were all CEAs. In all, 18 HEEs (62%) reported the base-case ICER, but notably, 11 studies (29%) did not report a base-case ICER clearly, and seven studies (24%) reported more than one base-case ICER. Two HEEs (7%) reported the control cost-effective, and 20 (69%) deemed the intervention cost-effective. A complete overview of the details concerning HEE characteristics is provided in Table 3. Additional variables for the country, time horizon, currency and price index year, number of alternatives, discounting rates for cost and effect, types of sensitivity analysis, reporting of methods for comparison of more than two alternatives, ICER plot in the incremental cost-effectiveness (ICE) plane, willingness-to-accept, and willingness-to-pay are presented in Table S1.

Table 2 Health economic characteristics of the included HEEs (n =29)
Table 3 Summary of aggregated results for each the items of the Drummond and Jeffersons 35- item checklist

Quality assessment

The checklist items used for quality assessment are shown in Table 3 with corresponding response frequencies. Regarding items on study design (1–7), most HEEs (n = 26, 90%) provided well-described research questions (item 1) [23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46]. However, while three HEEs (10%) did not clearly state which comparator they applied in their research question, the alternatives were described elsewhere (item 5) [47,48,49]. Moreover, eight HEEs (28%) stated the economic importance of actual cost quantifications (item 2) [26,27,28, 32, 43, 45, 48, 49], while the others only used generic statements similar to ‘costly’ [23,24,25, 29,30,31, 33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42, 44, 46, 47]. Viewpoint was stated in all but three HEE (item 3) [34, 38, 41]. All studies report a clear description of the alternatives being compared as well as the form of economic evaluation (item 6), however, none of the studies give a justification on the choice of HEE among CEA, CUA or CBA, nor did any of the studies give a rational for the choice of effectiveness or utility measure where appropriate (item 7).

Regarding items on data collection (8–21), all but one (3 %) [44] HEE clearly stated the primary outcome of the evaluation (item 11) [44] and sources of effectiveness estimation is stated in all studies (item 8). However, only eight HEEs (28%) reported details of the subjects from whom valuation is obtained (item 13) [23, 26, 29, 34, 35, 40, 43]. Nineteen HEEs (66%) [25, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48] described the methods for estimation of quantities and unit costs (item 17), but only 12 HEEs (41%) reported recourse use separately from unit costs (item 16) [25, 29, 35, 37,38,39,40,41, 43,44,45, 47].

Regarding items related to results analysis and interpretation (22–35), only two HEEs (10%) did not report a time horizon (item 22) [24, 33]. Ten HEEs (34%) did not report details of the statistical tests and confidence intervals for stochastic data (item 26) [26, 28, 30, 31, 36, 37, 41, 42, 44, 45]. All but one HEE reported approaches to sensitivity analyses (item 27) and conducted either one-way sensitivity analysis or/and a PSA [28]. Furthermore, four HEEs (14%) did not report an incremental analysis (item 31) [24, 34, 38, 46], which was also unclear in seven HEEs (24%) [29, 36, 37, 41, 44, 47, 49]. Eight HEEs (28%) did not report cost and effects in disaggregated and aggregated forms (item 32) [24, 30, 34, 37, 40, 41, 44, 46]. Three HEEs (10%) do not provide an answer as to which alternative was cost-effective [23, 32, 47,48,49] and five studies (17%) are not stating it clearly but report statements such as numeric numbers but without conclusion [23, 33, 43] None of the HEEs reported information about the learning curve, incremental innovation, dynamic pricing, or organisational impact. These items included incremental innovation, dynamic pricing, the learning curve, and organisational impact.


This systematic review summarised the methodological quality of HEEs that included AI interventions as a comparator. The results are not presented as aggregated study-specific percentage scores since items were considered to be weighted differently according to their impact on methodological quality. Furthermore, the results show that items related to study design and data analysis have higher completion scores than items related to results analysis and interpretation. Surprisingly, none of the studies addressed MedTech-specific items. Another systematic review used the CHEERS checklist to assess the methodological quality of HEEs on AI interventions. They also identified relatively few studies, given the high publication rate of AI studies, and found that most did not report details on analytical methods (n = 14), model assumptions (n = 11), and characterising uncertainty (n = 12) [1]. In this systematic review, all studies provided well-described research questions, the viewpoint of the analyses, and the primary outcome, which is valuable information when understanding the very context of the evaluation. However, when addressing the analytical part of the HEEs, seven studies did not report unit costs and resource use separately. In general, transparency about any input variable is critical to validate the HEE and understand drivers for cost-effectiveness. The time horizon was also missing in three studies. Four studies did not report statistical tests and/or confidence intervals for outcome data, which is concerning for several reasons. First, HEEs are used as input tools for decision-making. Therefore, not stating a time horizon causes fundamental challenges since it prevents the reader from assessing whether it captures major cost and health impact consequences [4]. In addition, not providing information on the statistical uncertainties of stochastic data is problematic since it reflects whether key parameters are candidates for sensitivity analysis in both one-way- or multiway-PSA [4]. However, the three most noteworthy methodological quality drawbacks we found was related to the ICER and effect measures. Firstly, clear reporting of the results of the HHEs in the form of an ICER, and secondly, sufficient presentation of the ICER in disaggregated form to allow for correct interpretation. The ICER is a measure of cost-effectiveness when comparing two or more alternatives. It is calculated by dividing the difference in costs by the difference in effects. The new intervention is either better and more expensive, worse and less expensive, worse and more expensive, or better and cheaper. The two latter outcomes always predominate, and the first two outcomes have to be deemed cost-effective against a willingness-to-pay or willingness-to-accept threshold, respectively. Hence, a clearly stated ICER and transparent disaggregated presentation of results is vital to draw such logical conclusions, which was missing in eight studies [36]. Thirdly, the use of proxy measures raises some concerns. An example is the study by Hassan et al. which uses detection rates as outcome measure in the CEA [44]. However, such approach raises some challenges since not all adenomas will progress to cancer. This may well overestimate the effect of the technology, and in turn underestimate the ICER, which results in overutilization of scarce health care resources. All the abovementioned can suggest a more general lack of understanding of the important tenet of conducting high-quality HEEs, which is also evident in studies evaluating pharmaceuticals [50].

One limitation of the checklists used in this study is that they do not provide information on how the intervention impacts the outcome(s). AI interventions can be complex and often comprise several interactions between technology, healthcare professionals, and patients. It is the authors’ opinion that there is a lack of understanding of how AI technologies impact the outcome(s). Lack of detailed analysis of costs is another limitation of the checklists. In general, there is a lack of understanding which cost should be included in a CEA and which cost are cost-drivers. A separate framework for cost and resource use is warranted.

None of the studies reported information on the learning curve, which is concerning since AI technologies can modify the effect as they mature and more data becomes available, altering cost-effectiveness. However, the authors acknowledges that this can be a very complex task to handle in practice [7, 15]. An AI-specific checklist, similar to the extensions of CONSORT-AI and SPIRIT-AI, could provide a more transparent quality assessment. Such checklist should also address which resources are relevant to include in CEA’s. This is critical since AI carries various external costs, such as incremental innovation costs, costs related to re-training the model, monitoring costs etc.

We also recognise that AI is a generic term and that a one-size-fits-all approach will be difficult to apply given the distinctive differences between AI sub-types, such as purpose, technology, and effect. However, it is unavoidable that AI will impact future healthcare systems, given its ability to rethink healthcare by transforming large amounts of data to support diagnostics or clinical decision-making. Therefore, it is important to map possible methodological quality challenges in HEEs to enhance awareness of these in future research. Given these limitations, the list presented in this study provides a minimal level of guidance and is not sufficient for a full HEE for AI interventions. Thus, a more thorough checklist for HEE of an AI intervention is warranted. Regardless, only a few of the included studies adhere to this minimal level of guidance and can certainly be assessed as low quality HEEs.

The current study may be subject to bias as AI covers a broad terminology and research area, and our search strategy may not cover the entire field. However, we expect the number of false negatives is limited, and that our sample is representative for the current literature.


Given the large amount of application of AI interventions in healthcare there is a worryingly low number of full HEEs relative to the number of AI publications. Furthermore, mapping the evidence for the methodological quality of HEEs on AI shows a need to improve the quality specially concerning reporting and transparency of the ICER, and use of proxy outcome measures.

Availability of data and materials

The data collected and generated from the included studies can be sent on request to the corresponding author.



Alongside clinical trial


Atrial fibrillation


Artificial intelligence


Artificial intelligence electrocardiogram


Artificial Neural Networks


automated retinal image analysis system


Cost-benefit analysis


Cost-effectiveness analysis


Cohen–mansfield agitation inventory-short form


Continuous positive airway pressure


Cannot tell


Cost-utility analysis


Chest x-ray


Disability-adjusted life year


Decision analytic modelling


Diabetic retinopathy


Eyecare professional


Health economic evaluations

ICE plane:

Incremental cost-effectiveness plane


Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio


Medical subject headings


National health service


Opioid use disorder test


Patient health questionnaire


Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses-guidelines


Probabilistic sensitivity analysis


Quality-adjusted life year


Premature retinopathy




Type 1 diabetes


Type 2 diabetes


True positive proportion


  1. Voets MM, Veltman J, Slump CH, Siesling S, Koffijberg H. Systematic Review of Health Economic Evaluations Focused on Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: The Tortoise and the Cheetah. Value in Health. 2022;25:340–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Vasey B, Nagendran M, Campbell B, Clifton DA, Collins GS, Watkinson P, et al. Consensus statement Reporting guideline for the early-stage clinical evaluation of decision support systems driven by artificial intelligence: DECIDE-AI. Mudathir Ibrahim. 12:28.

  3. Liu X, Rivera SC, Moher D, Calvert MJ, Denniston AK. Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the CONSORT-AI extension. The BMJ. 2020;370:537–48.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 4th ed. Oxford; 2015.

  5. Chen Y. Health technology assessment and economic evaluation: Is it applicable for the traditional medicine? Integr Med Res. 2022;11:S516–7.

  6. Drummond M, Griffin A, Tarricone R. Economic Evaluation for Devices and Drugs-Same or Different? Value in Health. 2009;12:402–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Drummond M, Tarricone R, Torbica A. Economic Evaluation of Medical Devices. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Economics and Finance. Oxford University Press; 2018.

  8. Davenport T, Kalakota R. Digital Technology The potential for artificial intelligence in healthcare. Future Healthc J. 2019;6(2):94–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Yousef Shaheen M. Article title: Applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare: A review Applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare: A review. 2021.

  10. Dhiman P, Ma J, Andaur Navarro CL, Speich B, Bullock G, Damen JAA, et al. Methodological conduct of prognostic prediction models developed using machine learning in oncology: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022;22:101.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Moons KGM, Royston P, Vergouwe Y, Grobbee DE, Altman DG. Prognosis and prognostic research: What, why, and how? BMJ (Online). 2009;338:1317–20.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Faes L, Sim DA, van Smeden M, Held U, Bossuyt PM, Bachmann LM. Artificial intelligence and statistics: just the old wine in New Wineskins? Front Digit Health. 2022;4:833912.

  13. Wolff J, Pauling J, Keck A, Baumbach J. The economic impact of artificial intelligence in health care: Systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:16866.

  14. Drummond MF. Education & Debate Guidelines for authors and peer reviewers of economic submissions to the BMJ. 1996;313(7052):275–83.

  15. Tarricone R, Callea G, Ogorevc M, Prevolnik Rupel V. Improving the Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Medical Devices. Health Economics (United Kingdom). 2017;26:70–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, The PRISMA, et al. statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ. 2020;2021:372.

    Google Scholar 

  17. van Mastrigt GAPG, Hiligsmann M, Arts JJC, Broos PH, Kleijnen J, Evers SMAA, et al. How to prepare a systematic review of economic evaluations for informing evidence-based healthcare decisions: a five-step approach (part 1/3). Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. 2016;16:689–704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. rayyan. Accessed 6 Mar 2023.

  19. Watts RD, Li IW. Use of Checklists in Reviews of Health Economic Evaluations, 2010 to 2018. Value in Health. 2019;22:377–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Walker DG, Wilson RF, Ritu Sharma M, John Bridges B, Niessen L, Bass EB, et al. Best Practices for Conducting Economic Evaluations in Health Care: A Systematic Review of Quality Assessment Tools. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012.

  21. Frederix GWJ. Check Your Checklist: The Danger of Over- and Underestimating the Quality of Economic Evaluations. Pharmacoecon Open. 2019;3:433–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Brandão M, Pondé N, Piccart-Gebhart M. MammaprintTM: a comprehensive review. Future Oncol. 2019;15:207–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Gomez Rossi J, Rojas-Perilla N, Krois J, Schwendicke F. Cost-effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence as a Decision-Support System Applied to the Detection and Grading of Melanoma, Dental Caries, and Diabetic Retinopathy. JAMA Netw Open. 2022.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Delgadillo J, Ali S, Fleck K, Agnew C, Southgate A, Parkhouse L, et al. Stratified Care vs Stepped Care for Depression: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2022;79:101–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Fuller SD, Hu J, Liu JC, Gibson E, Gregory M, Kuo J, et al. Five-Year Cost-Effectiveness Modeling of Primary Care-Based, Nonmydriatic Automated Retinal Image Analysis Screening Among Low-Income Patients With Diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2022;16:415–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hill NR, Sandler B, Mokgokong R, Lister S, Ward T, Boyce R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of targeted screening for the identification of patients with atrial fibrillation: evaluation of a machine learning risk prediction algorithm. J Med Econ. 2020;23:386–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Huang XM, Yang BF, Zheng WL, Liu Q, Xiao F, Ouyang PW, et al. Cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence screening for diabetic retinopathy in rural China. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22:260.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Mervin MC, Moyle W, Jones C, Murfield J, Draper B, Beattie E, et al. The Cost-Effectiveness of Using PARO, a Therapeutic Robotic Seal, to Reduce Agitation and Medication Use in Dementia: Findings from a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018;19:619–622.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Morrison SL, Dukhovny D, Chan RVP, Chiang MF, Campbell JP. Cost-effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-Based Retinopathy of Prematurity Screening. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2022;140:401–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Schwendicke F, Mertens S, Cantu AG, Chaurasia A, Meyer-Lueckel H, Krois J. Cost-effectiveness of AI for caries detection: randomized trial. J Dent. 2022;119:104080.

  31. Schwendicke F, Rossi JG, Göstemeyer G, Elhennawy K, Cantu AG, Gaudin R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence for Proximal Caries Detection. J Dent Res. 2021;100:369–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tseng AS, Thao V, Borah BJ, Attia IZ, Medina Inojosa J, Kapa S, et al. Cost Effectiveness of an Electrocardiographic Deep Learning Algorithm to Detect Asymptomatic Left Ventricular Dysfunction. Mayo Clin Proc. 2021;96:1835–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wolf RM, Channa R, Abramoff MD, Lehmann HP. Cost-effectiveness of Autonomous Point-of-Care Diabetic Retinopathy Screening for Pediatric Patients with Diabetes. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2020;138:1063–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Turino C, Benítez ID, Rafael-Palou X, Mayoral A, Lopera A, Pascual L, et al. Management and treatment of patients with obstructive sleep apnea using an intelligent monitoring system based on machine learning aiming to improve continuous positive airway pressure treatment compliance: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23:24072.

  35. Lin S, Ma Y, Xu Y, Lu L, He J, Zhu J, et al. Artificial intelligence in community-based diabetic retinopathy telemedicine screening in urban China: cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses with real-world data. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2023;9:41624.

  36. Chawla H, Uhr JH, Williams JS, Reinoso MA, Weiss JS. Economic Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence Systems Versus Manual Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy in the United States. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2023;54:272–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Barkun AN, von Renteln D, Sadri H. Cost-effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-Aided Colonoscopy for Adenoma Detection in Colon Cancer Screening. J Can Assoc Gastroenterol. 2023;6:97–105.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Pickhardt PJ, Correale L, Hassan C. AI-based opportunistic CT screening of incidental cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and sarcopenia: cost-effectiveness analysis. Abdominal Radiology. 2023;48:1181–98.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Shen M, Zou Z, Bao H, Fairley CK, Canfell K, Ong JJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence-assisted liquid-based cytology testing for cervical cancer screening in China. Lancet Reg Health West Pac. 2023;34:100726.

  40. Yonazu S, Ozawa T, Nakanishi T, Ochiai K, Shibata J, Osawa H, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the artificial intelligence diagnosis support system for early gastric cancers. DEN Open. 2024;4:289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Skarping I, Nilsson K, Dihge L, Fridhammar A, Ohlsson M, Huss L, et al. The implementation of a noninvasive lymph node staging (NILS) preoperative prediction model is cost effective in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2022;194:577–86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Mital S, Nguyen HV. Cost-effectiveness of using artificial intelligence versus polygenic risk score to guide breast cancer screening. BMC Cancer. 2022;22:501.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Srisubat A, Kittrongsiri K, Sangroongruangsri S, Khemvaranan C, Shreibati JB, Ching J, et al. Cost-Utility Analysis of Deep Learning and Trained Human Graders for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening in a Nationwide Program. Ophthalmol Ther. 2023;12:1339–57.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Hassan C, Povero M, Pradelli L, Spadaccini M, Repici A. Cost-utility analysis of real-time artificial intelligent-assisted colonoscopy in Italy. Endosc Int Open. 2023.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Hill NR, Groves L, Dickerson C, Boyce R, Lawton S, Hurst M, et al. Identification of undiagnosed atrial fibrillation using a machine learning risk prediction algorithm and diagnostic testing (PULsE-AI) in primary care: cost-effectiveness of a screening strategy evaluated in a randomized controlled trial in England. J Med Econ. 2022;25:974–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ziegelmayer S, Graf M, Makowski M, Gawlitza J, Gassert F. Cost-effectiveness of artificial intelligence support in computed tomography-based lung cancer screening. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14:1729.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Nsengiyumva NP, Hussain H, Oxlade O, Majidulla A, Nazish A, Khan AJ, et al. Triage of persons with tuberculosis symptoms using artificial intelligence-based chest radiograph interpretation: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2021;8:567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Padula WV, Pronovost PJ, Makic MBF, Wald HL, Moran D, Mishra MK, et al. Value of hospital resources for effective pressure injury prevention: A cost-effectiveness analysis. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28:132–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Mallow PJ, Belk KW. Cost-utility analysis of single nucleotide polymorphism panel-based machine learning algorithm to predict risk of opioid use disorder. J Comp Eff Res. 2021;10:1349–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Erfani P, Bhangdia K, Stauber C, Mugunga JC, Pace LE, Fadelu T. Economic Evaluations of Breast Cancer Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review. Oncologist. 2021;26:e1406–17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references


We would like to thank Jette F. Jepsen from the medical library at Aalborg University Hospital for her valuable assistance with literature search.


NK has received internal unrestricted funding by Aalborg University, Aalborg University Hospital, and external unrestricted funding from Helsefonden (Grant 20-B-0008), and The Danish Ministry of Health. The funding sources will not have any influence on the research, authorship, and/or publication of results. The co-author(s) received no financial support for authorship, and/or publication of this article. We thank all the funding bodies for their vital financial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



NK have conceived the study idea. NK, AWHK, and JVB have made substantial contributions to the design of the work, analysis, and interpretation of results. All authors have reviewed and approved the final submitted version.

Authors’ information

Not applicable.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nanna Kastrup.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This article is based on previous studies and does not involve any new studies of human or animal subjects.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kastrup, N., Holst-Kristensen, A.W. & Valentin, J.B. Landscape and challenges in economic evaluations of artificial intelligence in healthcare: a systematic review of methodology. BMC Digit Health 2, 39 (2024).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: