Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40642667›Full record

ReviewCureus2025

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

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Perception and challenges of artificial intelligence (AI) in Emergency Medicine: A multi-country study in Sub-Saharan Africa.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Improving Emergency Response: A Comparative Analysis of Traditional vs Artificial Intelligence-assisted Triage Systems in Health Care and Their Impact.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Abubaker Zakria Ahmed AbdalhalimEmergency Medicine, Rustaq Hospital, Rustaq, OMN.
Sheimaa Nasreldein Nureldaim AhmedGeneral Medicine, Sheikh Khalifa General Hospital, Ummalquwain, ARE.
Ahmed Mohamed Dawoud EzzelarabGeneral Practice, Saudi Airline Medical Services Company, Jeddah, SAU.
Mawada MustafaSurgery, Faculty of Medicine, Jazan University, Jazan, SAU.
Mohammed Gabralla Ali AlbasheerEmergency Medicine, Barka Polyclinic, Barka, OMN.
Roaa Eltag Abdelgadir AhmedEmergency Medicine, King Fahad Hospital, Albahah, SAU.
Mowafag Bushra Galal Eldin ElsayedEmergency Medicine, Mayo University Hospital, Castlebar, IRL.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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 by 0.3-8.9%. However, limitations included undertriage risks, variable accuracy, and predominance of single-center studies. Implementation challenges encompassed workflow integration barriers and insufficient clinician acceptance metrics. AI-based triage systems show promise for improving ED efficiency but require rigorous multi-center validation and standardized outcome reporting. Key gaps include evidence on patient-centered outcomes, equity considerations, and long-term impact studies. Future development should prioritize explainable algorithms, clinician engagement, and ethical frameworks to ensure safe implementation.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceclinical decision supportemergency medicinemachine learningtriage

Identifiers

PMID40642667
PMCPMC12241827

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.