This study aimed to systematically review recent health economic evaluations (HEEs) of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in healthcare. The aim was to discuss pertinent methods, reporting quality and challenges for future implementation of AI in healthcare, and additionally advise future HEEs.Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted in 2 databases (PubMed and Scopus) for articles published in the last 5 years. Two reviewers performed independent screening, full-text inclusion, data extraction, and appraisal. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and Philips checklist were used for the quality assessment of included studies.Results: A total of 884 unique studies were identified; 20 were included for full-text review, covering a wide range of medical specialties and care pathway phases. The most commonly evaluated type of AI was automated medical image analysis models (n = 9, 45%). The prevailing health economic analysis was cost minimization (n = 8, 40%) with the costs saved per case as preferred outcome measure. A total of 9 studies (45%) reported model-based HEEs, 4 of which applied a time horizon .1 year. The evidence supporting the chosen analytical methods, assessment of uncertainty, and model structures was underreported. The reporting quality of the articles was moderate as on average studies reported on 66% of Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards items.Conclusions: HEEs of AI in healthcare are limited and often focus on costs rather than health impact. Surprisingly, modelbased long-term evaluations are just as uncommon as model-based short-term evaluations. Consequently, insight into the actual benefits offered by AI is lagging behind current technological developments.

No abstract

The goal of this study was to describe the variation in hospital-based diagnostic care activities for patients with symptomatology suspect for breast cancer in The Netherlands. Two cohorts were included: the ‘benign’ cohort (30,334 women suspected of, but without breast cancer) and the ‘malignant’ cohort (2236 breast cancer patients). Hospital-based financial data was combined with tumor data (malignant cohort) from The Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patterns within diagnostic pathways were analyzed. Factors influencing the number of visits and number of diagnostic care activities until diagnosis were identified in the malignant cohort with multivariable Cox and Poisson regression models. Compared to patients with benign diagnosis, patients with malignant disease received their diagnosis less frequently in one day, after an equal average number of hospital visits and higher average number of diagnostic activities. Factors increasing the number of diagnostic care activities were the following: lower age and higher cM-and cN-stages. Factors increasing the number of days until (malignant) diagnosis were as follows: higher BIRADS-score, screen-detected and higher cN-and cT-stages. Hospital of diagnosis influenced both number of activities and days to diagnosis. The diagnostic care pathway of patients with malignant disease required more time and diagnostic activities than benign disease and depends on hospital, tumor and patient characteristics.