SynthesisAcademic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine2026
Prevalence of Professional Interpreter Use in Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEmergency departments (EDs) increasingly serve linguistically diverse populations. Professional interpretation improves care, yet its use remains variable. Quantifying the prevalence of use and understanding disparities can inform policies and interventions. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of professional interpreter use in English-speaking EDs and compare use across patient populations and countries.
methodsEight databases were searched from inception to May 15, 2025. We screened full texts included in a prior scoping review to identify studies reporting the prevalence of professional interpreter use among patients requiring interpretation in English-speaking EDs. We pooled prevalence overall and stratified by population (adult vs. children) and country (United States vs. other), with 95% prediction intervals and confidence intervals (CIs). Meta-regression assessed associations between study year and prevalence. Risk of bias was evaluated using the JBI checklist for prevalence studies.
resultsThirty-two studies spanning 1997-2025 involving 65,736 participants were included. Professional interpreters were used in 29% (CI, 20%, 38%) of encounters with patients requiring interpretation. Use was higher with children (49%; CI, 41%, 58%) than adults (16%; CI, 11%, 22%), and higher in the United States (33%; CI, 24%, 43%) than other countries (14%; CI, 4%, 30%). There was no significant association between study year and interpreter use (p = 0.38).
conclusionsDespite known benefits, professional interpreter use in EDs remains low, particularly among adults and outside the United States. Addressing this gap will require coordinated efforts from clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers to improve access to and accountability for language-concordant care in EDs.
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.