SynthesisBMC emergency medicine2026
Interventions to reduce emergency department overcrowding and their effects on patient outcomes: a mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOvercrowding in emergency departments (EDs) leads to inadequate patient outcomes and increased operational costs. These complications contribute to heightened stress on healthcare systems thus, effective methods to reduce ED overcrowding are necessary to improve patient flow and overall care quality.
aimThis mixed-method systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the effectiveness of interventions such as Fast-Track, Team Triage, and Point-Of-Care Testing (POCT) in reducing ED overcrowding and improving patient flow metrics, including ED length of stay (LOS), wait times, and discharge times, to provide evidence-based recommendations for policy and practice in emergency healthcare.
methodsThis review complies with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Three databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar) were systematically searched for studies published between 2015 and 2025 assessing interventions to reduce ED overcrowding. A structured risk-of-bias assessment (RoB 2, ROBINS-I, JBI, MMAT) indicated overall acceptable methodological quality, with expected limitations related to non-randomized designs and limited blinding. Mean LOS was pooled using random-effects meta-analysis in RevMan, with heterogeneity assessed and secondary outcomes summarized narratively. This study is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2025: CRD42025634351).
resultsThis review included 15 studies, 6 eligible for meta-analysis. Fast-Track significantly reduced ED length of stay (MD = − 20.89 min; 95% CI: − 37.05 to − 4.33; p = 0.01). POCT (MD = − 65.50 min; 95% CI: − 137.54 to 6.53; p = 0.07) and Team Triage (MD = − 46.11 min; 95% CI: − 120.59 to 28.38; p = 0.23) demonstrated variable reductions in ED LOS, with pooled effects influenced by substantial between-study heterogeneity. All analyses exhibited significant heterogeneity. Qualitative synthesis further suggested improvements in waiting times, patient throughput, and departmental efficiency.
conclusionOur findings highlight the importance of targeted interventions to alleviate ED overcrowding; Fast-Track showed consistent effectiveness, while POCT and Team Triage showed variable and, often context-dependent effects. These findings offer practical and evidence-based strategies to support ED flow improvements, though further high-quality research is needed.
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.