Conclusions
This systematic review synthesizes the available evidence on the potential economic benefits of clinical-grade mobile app–based DTx as well as some of the qualitative deficits in DTx EE methodology, which can be used to guide future research on the subject. Specific areas that can benefit from more research and would further support market access decision-making and the adoption of DTx include evaluating DTx interventions in more diverse populations, across a greater variety of local contexts, and over longer time horizons.The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their comments and Gergana Koleva, MSc, MA, for copyediting the paper.Authors' Contributions: YS, AR, and LMC conceptualized the study. YS and XT conducted the literature searches, literature screening, study analysis, and data collection. CTAB performed the quality assessment and risk-of-bias appraisal. YS, XT, and CTAB completed the data synthesis with input from the contributors and drafted the manuscript. AR, FK, LMC, GT, AB, CLH, JY, and DH contributed to refining all sections and critically editing the manuscript. All authors contributed to and have approved the final manuscript.Conflicts of Interest: GT is an employee of Cytel Canada Health Inc, Canada. FK is an employee of IU Internationale Hochschule GmbH, Germany, and Flying Health GmbH, Germany. CLH is an employee of Pureland Global Venture Pte Ltd, Singapore. AB and DH are coinventors of previously filed pending patents on artificial intelligence–based therapy development. YS, XT, CTAB, AR, LMC, and JY have no conflicts of interest.Consensus Health Economic Criteria quality assessment.Risk of bias for randomized clinical trial–based economic evaluations.Risk of bias for nonrandomized studies–based economic evaluations.Risk of bias for model-based economic evaluations.