ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Evidence for Digital Health Tools Designed to Support the Triage of Musculoskeletal Conditions in Primary, Urgent, and Emergency Care Settings: Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- AI applications in veterinary digital health: a systematic survey.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical spectrum and diagnostic outcomes of patients with suspected inflammatory rheumatic disease in the emergency department: a retrospective study.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- Correction: Evidence for Digital Health Tools Designed to Support the Triage of Musculoskeletal Conditions in Primary, Urgent, and Emergency Care Settings: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The digital health research field is growing rapidly, and a summary of the available digital tools for triaging musculoskeletal conditions is needed. Effective and safe digital triage tools for musculoskeletal conditions could support patients and clinicians in making informed care decisions and may contribute to reducing emergency department overcrowding and health care costs. Objective: The aim of the study is to identify and describe digital health tools for use by adults to triage musculoskeletal conditions across primary, urgent, or emergency care settings. Methods: Our scoping review was conducted following the Johanna Briggs Institute recommendations for scoping reviews and Arksey and O'Malley's framework. Systematic searches in MEDLINE (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (EBSCO), Embase (OVID), Cochrane Library, Web of Science, OpenGrey, Google Scholar, arXiv, medRxiv, and an extensive gray literature search were conducted with a librarian scientist from inception to September 18, 2025. Studies had to recruit adults (aged 18 years and older) with musculoskeletal conditions that identified a digital health tool designed to triage or diagnose in primary, urgent, or emergency care settings and report primary data to be included. In total, 2 reviewer pairs independently screened abstracts and full-text papers. Relevant data were extracted in duplicate, and results were summarized descriptively. Results: The search yielded 5695 records, and we screened 189 full-text papers. In total, 34 studies (n=37,509 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The most common musculoskeletal conditions reported were rheumatoid or inflammatory arthritis (13/34, 38%). In total, 19 (19/34, 56%) studies reported on symptom checkers, 13 (13/34, 38%) studies on triage or diagnosis tools, and 2 (2/34, 6%) were studies of diagnostic predictor tools. There were 16 unique digital health tools. A total of 2 tools were built for triaging musculoskeletal conditions and were not publicly available outside the UK National Health Service. Most tools were generic tools designed to screen for general health problems, including musculoskeletal conditions. The most common approach to evaluating performance (eg, accuracy) of the tools was to compare the concordance of the tool to a clinician diagnosis or triage recommendation. Sensitivity and specificity ranged from 39% to 91% and 23% to 80%, respectively. The reported accuracy of the included tools ranged from 33% to 98%. Conclusions: Musculoskeletal conditions remain a blind spot for people designing, implementing, and evaluating digital health for triage: few tools were specifically designed for musculoskeletal conditions, and most existing tools performed poorly when applied to musculoskeletal populations. We recommend health systems and clinicians use a multimodal approach, integrating both digital health tools and clinical decision-making to safely triage and diagnose until a more robust tool for musculoskeletal conditions is available. Future tool developers need to use transparent, standardized processes that prioritize tool safety, clinical value, and trustworthiness when designing for clinicians and patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.