Evidence Hub

Clinical Impact of Artificial Intelligence-Based Triage Systems in Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review

Abubaker Zakria Ahmed Abdalhalim, Sheimaa Nasreldein Nureldaim Ahmed, Ahmed Mohamed Dawoud Ezzelarab, Mawada Mustafa, Mohammed Gabralla Ali Albasheer, Roaa Eltag Abdelgadir Ahmed, Mowafag Bushra Galal Eldin Elsayed

Cureus, 2025

67 participants · 37 citations

Abstract

Emergency departments (EDs) worldwide face increasing pressure to optimize triage processes amidst rising patient volumes and resource constraints. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a potential solution to enhance triage accuracy and efficiency, yet its real-world clinical impact remains inadequately characterized. We conducted a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, searching PubMed/Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Web of Science, and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Xplore (2020-2025) for studies evaluating AI-based ED triage systems. From 119 initially identified records, six studies met inclusion criteria after duplicate removal (n=67), title/abstract screening (n=52), and full-text assessment (n=12). Eligible studies reported quantitative outcomes on AI performance compared to traditional triage methods. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Narrative synthesis was employed due to methodological heterogeneity. The included studies (n=6) demonstrated AI’s potential to reduce triage time, improve documentation accuracy, and enhance decision support. Voice-based artificial intelligence (Voice-AI) systems achieved 19% faster documentation versus manual methods, while machine learning algorithms reduced mis-triage rates…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 67 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free