Cited by 44Glaucoma and retinal disordersHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeRetinal Imaging and Analysis

Health care cost and benefits of artificial intelligence-assisted population-based glaucoma screening for the elderly in remote areas of China: a cost-offset analysis

Open access
Xiao, Xuan, Xue, Long, Ye, Lin, Li, Hongzheng, He, Yunzhen·2021·BMC Public Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Population-based screening was essential for glaucoma management. Although various studies have investigated the cost-effectiveness of glaucoma screening, policymakers facing with uncontrollably growing total health expenses were deeply concerned about the potential financial consequences of glaucoma screening. This present study was aimed to explore the impact of glaucoma screening with artificial intelligence (AI) automated diagnosis from a budgetary standpoint in Changjiang county, China. METHODS: A Markov model based on health care system's perspective was adapted from previously published studies to predict disease progression and healthcare costs. A cohort of 19,395 individuals aged 65 and above were simulated over a 15-year timeframe. Fur illustrative purpose, we only considered primary angle-closure glaucoma (PACG) in this study. Prevalence, disease progression risks between stages, compliance rates were obtained from publish studies. We did a meta-analysis to estimate diagnostic performance of AI automated diagnosis system from fundus image. Screening costs were provided by the Changjiang screening programme, whereas treatment costs were derived from electronic medical records from two county hospitals. Main outcomes included the number of PACG patients and health care costs. Cost-offset analysis was employed to compare projected health outcomes and medical care costs under the screening with what they would have been without screening. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to quantify uncertainties around model results. RESULTS: Among people aged 65 and above in Changjiang county, it was predicted that there were 1940 PACG patients under the AI-assisted screening scenario, compared with 2104 patients without screening in 15 years' time. Specifically, the screening would reduce patients with primary angle closure suspect by 7.7%, primary angle closure by 8.8%, PACG by 16.7%, and visual blindness by 33.3%. Due to early diagnosis and treatment under the screening, healthcare costs surged dramatically to $107,761.4 dollar in the first year and then were constantly declining over time, while without screening costs grew from $14,759.8 in the second year until peaking at $17,900.9 in the 9th year. However, cost-offset analysis revealed that additional healthcare costs resulted from the screening could not be offset by decreased disease progression. The 5-, 10-, and 15-year accumulated incremental costs of screening versus no screening were estimated to be $396,362.8, $424,907.9, and $434,903.2, respectively. As a result, the incremental cost per PACG of any stages prevented was $1464.3. CONCLUSIONS: This study represented the first attempt to address decision-maker's budgetary concerns when adopting glaucoma screening by developing a Markov prediction model to project health outcomes and costs. Population screening combined with AI automated diagnosis for PACG in China were able to reduce disease progression risks. However, the excess costs of screening could never be offset by reduction in disease progression. Further studies examining the cost-effectiveness or cost-utility of AI-assisted glaucoma screening were needed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12889-021-11097-w

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Xiao, X., Xue, L., Ye, L., Li, H., & He, Y.
Affiliations
  • Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University (CN)
  • Jinan University (CN)
  • Fudan University (CN)
Corresponding author
He, Yunzhen
Venue
BMC Public Health
Published
2021-06-04
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
1065-1065
ISSN
1471-2458 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3165428749
Cited by
44
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3
FWCI
0.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (81100644)
  • Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Glaucoma and retinal disorders
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
Keywords
glaucoma screening, artificial intelligence, primary angle-closure glaucoma, mass screening, older adults, remote areas, cost-effectiveness, disease progression, health care costs, China, Markov model, primary angle closure suspect, blindness prevention
MeSH terms
Aged, Artificial Intelligence, China, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Glaucoma, Humans, Glaucoma, Angle-Closure, Health Care Costs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review