Economic Evaluations and Equity in the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Imaging Exams for Medical Diagnosis in People With Skin, Neurological, and Pulmonary Diseases: Protocol for a Systematic Review

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_SANTANA_Economic_Evaluations_and_Equity_in_the_Use_of_2023.PDF (106.37 KB)
Citações na Scopus
0
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2023
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
JMIR PUBLICATIONS, INC
Autores
SANTANA, Giulia Osorio
COUTO, Rodrigo de Macedo
LOUREIRO, Rafael Maffei
FURRIEL, Brunna Carolinne Rocha Silva
ROTHER, Edna Terezinha
PAIVA, Joselisa Peres Queiroz de
Citação
JMIR RESEARCH PROTOCOLS, v.12, article ID e48544, 8p, 2023
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Background: Traditional health care systems face long-standing challenges, including patient diversity, geographical disparities, and financial constraints. The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care offers solutions to these challenges. AI, a multidisciplinary field, enhances clinical decision-making. However, imbalanced AI models may enhance health disparities. Objective: This systematic review aims to investigate the economic performance and equity impact of AI in diagnostic imaging for skin, neurological, and pulmonary diseases. The research question is ""To what extent does the use of AI in imaging exams for diagnosing skin, neurological, and pulmonary diseases result in improved economic outcomes, and does it promote equity in Methods: The study is a systematic review of economic and equity evaluations following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) guidelines. Eligibility criteria include articles reporting on economic evaluations or equity considerations related to AI-based diagnostic imaging for specified diseases. Data will be collected from PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and reference lists. Data quality and transferability will be assessed according to CHEC (Consensus on Health Economic Criteria), EPHPP Results: This systematic review began in March 2023. The literature search identified 9,526 publications and, after full-text screening, 9 publications were included in the study. We plan to submit a manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal once it is finalized, Conclusions: AI in diagnostic imaging offers potential benefits but also raises concerns about equity and economic impact. Bias in algorithms and disparities in access may hinder equitable outcomes. Evaluating the economic viability of AI applications is essential for resource allocation and affordability. Policy makers and health care stakeholders can benefit from this review's insights to make informed decisions. Limitations, including study variability and publication bias, will be considered in the analysis. This systematic review will provide valuable insights into the economic and equity implications of AI in diagnostic imaging. It aims to inform evidence-based decision-making and contribute to more efficient and equitable health care systems. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/48544
Palavras-chave
artificial intelligence, economic evaluation, equity, medical diagnosis, health care system, technology, systematic review, cost-effectiveness, imaging exam, intervention
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/58081
Referências
  1. [Anonymous], 2023, Quality assessment tool for quantitative studies
  2. Celuppi IC, 2021, CAD SAUDE PUBLICA, V37, DOI [10.1590/0102-311X00243220, 10.1590/0102-311x00243220]
  3. Cirillo D, 2020, NPJ DIGIT MED, V3, DOI 10.1038/s41746-020-0288-5
  4. Clark CR, 2021, J GEN INTERN MED, V36, P3188, DOI 10.1007/s11606-021-06846-x
  5. Corti C, 2023, CANCER TREAT REV, V112, DOI 10.1016/j.ctrv.2022.102498
  6. Doupe P, 2019, VALUE HEALTH, V22, P808, DOI 10.1016/j.jval.2019.02.012
  7. Menicucci TMG, 2009, CAD SAUDE PUBLICA, V25, P1620, DOI 10.1590/S0102-311X2009000700021
  8. Husereau D, 2022, INT J TECHNOL ASSESS, V38, DOI 10.1017/S0266462321001732
  9. Jiang F, 2017, STROKE VASC NEUROL, V2, P230, DOI 10.1136/svn-2017-000101
  10. Kaushal A, 2020, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V324, P1212, DOI 10.1001/jama.2020.12067
  11. Kelly CJ, 2019, BMC MED, V17, DOI 10.1186/s12916-019-1426-2
  12. Lee H, 2020, APPL NURS RES, V56, DOI 10.1016/j.apnr.2020.151367
  13. McCarthy J, 2007, What is Artificial Intelligence?'
  14. MITCHELL T, 1989, ANNU REV COMPUT SCI, V4, P417
  15. Mittermaier M, 2023, NPJ DIGIT MED, V6, DOI 10.1038/s41746-023-00858-z
  16. Nichols James A, 2019, Biophys Rev, V11, P111, DOI 10.1007/s12551-018-0449-9
  17. Obermeyer Z, 2019, SCIENCE, V366, P447, DOI 10.1126/science.aax2342
  18. Page MJ, 2022, REV PANAM SALUD PUBL, V46, DOI [10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4, 10.26633/RPSP.2022.112, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003583, 10.1016/j.rec.2021.07.010, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001, 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906, 10.1136/bmj.n71]
  19. Panch T, 2019, J GLOB HEALTH, V9, DOI 10.7189/jogh.09.020318
  20. Rong G, 2020, ENGINEERING-PRC, V6, P291, DOI 10.1016/j.eng.2019.08.015
  21. Shamseer L, 2015, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V349, DOI 10.1136/bmj.g7647
  22. Shen DG, 2017, ANNU REV BIOMED ENG, V19, P221, DOI [10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071516-044442, 10.1146/annurev-bioeng-071516044442]
  23. Siontis GCM, 2021, BMJ HEALTH CARE INFO, V28, DOI 10.1136/bmjhci-2021-100466
  24. Welch V, 2012, PLOS MED, V9, DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001333
  25. Welte R, 2004, PHARMACOECONOMICS, V22, P857, DOI 10.2165/00019053-200422130-00004
  26. Wijnen BFM, 2016, EXPERT REV PHARM OUT, V16, P723, DOI 10.1080/14737167.2016.1246961
  27. World Health Organization, 2021, Generating Evidence for Artificial Intelligence-Based Medical Devices: A Framework for Training, Validation and Evaluation

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/Outros
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - ODS/10