Technological Integration in Triage With AI and Machine Learning Compared With Conventional Triage and Narrative Synthesis of Telehealth for Patient Prioritization in Emergency and Acute Care Settings: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
4 affiliations
- 1College of Nursing, QU-Health Sector, Qatar University, P.O. Box 2713, Doha, Qatar, +974 4403 7433.
- 2Department of Pre-Clinical Affairs, College of Nursing, QU-Health, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar.
- 3Berkley School of Nursing, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, United States.
- 4Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, Santosh Deemed to be University, Ghaziabad, Delhi, NCR, 201009, India.
Abstract
Background
Conventional triage relies on clinician judgment and limited information available at first contact. AI and machine learning (ML) may improve early risk stratification, whereas tele-triage and patient-facing tools primarily support remote assessment, access, and care routing.Objective
This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic performance of AI- and ML-assisted triage systems and summarize evidence on tele-triage, workflow, implementation, economic, and equity outcomes.Methods
Comparative studies published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2025, evaluating AI-, ML-, natural language processing-, telehealth-, or digitally enhanced triage. At first, clinical contacts were included. PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, preprint servers, trial registries, and conference proceedings were searched. Screening and data extraction were performed independently in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed using design-appropriate tools. Clinically comparable area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) estimates were synthesized using random-effects meta-analysis; heterogeneous diagnostic, operational, implementation, economic, and equity outcomes were summarized narratively. Exploratory scenario modeling projected effects per 10,000 emergency department (ED) visits.Results
Twenty-seven studies were included, comprising 13 studies in the quantitative evidence stream and 14 in the narrative synthesis. Four adult ED studies evaluating critical care or deterioration outcomes demonstrated high pooled discrimination for AI-assisted triage (AUC 0.874; 95% CI 0.845-0.898; I²=94.4%; 95% prediction interval 0.803-0.922). Four studies reported directly extractable within-study comparisons favoring AI-assisted models (AUC differences of 0.097, 0.120, 0.108, and 0.065), although these could not be pooled because paired variance estimates were unavailable. Admission/disposition studies reported AI-model AUCs ranging from 0.80 to 0.93 and were summarized descriptively because extreme heterogeneity precluded meaningful pooling. Two pediatric studies (AUCs of 0.85-0.99) were summarized descriptively. Prediction-model studies were primarily limited by deficiencies in model analysis, calibration reporting, and external validation. Narrative evidence suggested improved front-door operational metrics with tele-triage, including reported reductions of 15%-40% in time to clinical assessment and 2-8 percentage points in left-without-being-seen rates, whereas patient-facing symptom checkers generally favored sensitivity over specificity. Exploratory scenario modeling illustrated that, under specified prevalence and threshold assumptions, AI-assisted triage could be associated with 12-38 fewer missed critical illness cases and 45-120 additional false-positive escalations per 10,000 ED visits. Economic and equity findings were assumption-dependent projections rather than observed clinical, cost-effectiveness, or equity outcomes.Conclusions
AI- and ML-assisted triage models demonstrate promising discrimination for adult ED risk stratification; however, AUC-based discrimination does not establish superiority at clinically relevant decision thresholds, improved patient outcomes, or readiness for clinical implementation. Interpretation is limited by substantial heterogeneity, incomplete threshold-level performance and calibration reporting, limited external validation, and sparse pediatric evidence. Prospective multicenter validation, workflow assessment, subgroup calibration and equity auditing, and formal economic evaluation are required before routine implementation.
Related
- Telehealth-related education and training: a systematic review of recent developments since the COVID-19 pandemic
- Digital health integration and technological advancements in Saudi Arabia’s healthcare system: a comparative analysis of clustered and non-clustered hospitals
- Effects of telehealth-integrated interventions for smoking cessation and alcohol reduction among people living with HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Bridging Conventional and Natural Therapies for Recurrent Aphthous Stomatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Triamcinolone and Non-Steroidal Alternatives
- Effects of pre-membrane acidification on extracorporeal CO2 removal compared with conventional ECCO2R in mechanically ventilated animal models: a preclinical systematic review protocol.
BibTeX
@article{ashour2026technological,
title = {{Technological Integration in Triage With AI and Machine Learning Compared With Conventional Triage and Narrative Synthesis of Telehealth for Patient Prioritization in Emergency and Acute Care Settings: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.}},
author = {Faii O M Ashour and Waqas Sami and Intima Alrimawi and Moattar Raza Rizvi and Majeda M El-Banna},
journal = {Journal of medical Internet research},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.2196/93931},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42896140},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Technological Integration in Triage With AI and Machine Learning Compared With Conventional Triage and Narrative Synthesis of Telehealth for Patient Prioritization in Emergency and Acute Care Settings: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
AU - Faii O M Ashour
AU - Waqas Sami
AU - Intima Alrimawi
AU - Moattar Raza Rizvi
AU - Majeda M El-Banna
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/19
JO - Journal of medical Internet research
DO - 10.2196/93931
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42896140
AB - Background Conventional triage relies on clinician judgment and limited information available at first contact. AI and machine learning (ML) may improve early risk stratification, whereas tele-triage and patient-facing tools primarily support remote assessment, access, and care routing.Objective This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic performance of AI- and ML-assisted triage systems and summarize evidence on tele-triage, workflow, implementation, economic, and equity outcomes.Methods Comparative studies published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2025, evaluating AI-, ML-, natural language processing-, telehealth-, or digitally enhanced triage. At first, clinical contacts were included. PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, preprint servers, trial registries, and conference proceedings were searched. Screening and data extraction were performed independently in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed using design-appropriate tools. Clinically comparable area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) estimates were synthesized using random-effects meta-analysis; heterogeneous diagnostic, operational, implementation, economic, and equity outcomes were summarized narratively. Exploratory scenario modeling projected effects per 10,000 emergency department (ED) visits.Results Twenty-seven studies were included, comprising 13 studies in the quantitative evidence stream and 14 in the narrative synthesis. Four adult ED studies evaluating critical care or deterioration outcomes demonstrated high pooled discrimination for AI-assisted triage (AUC 0.874; 95% CI 0.845-0.898; I²=94.4%; 95% prediction interval 0.803-0.922). Four studies reported directly extractable within-study comparisons favoring AI-assisted models (AUC differences of 0.097, 0.120, 0.108, and 0.065), although these could not be pooled because paired variance estimates were unavailable. Admission/disposition studies reported AI-model AUCs ranging from 0.80 to 0.93 and were summarized descriptively because extreme heterogeneity precluded meaningful pooling. Two pediatric studies (AUCs of 0.85-0.99) were summarized descriptively. Prediction-model studies were primarily limited by deficiencies in model analysis, calibration reporting, and external validation. Narrative evidence suggested improved front-door operational metrics with tele-triage, including reported reductions of 15%-40% in time to clinical assessment and 2-8 percentage points in left-without-being-seen rates, whereas patient-facing symptom checkers generally favored sensitivity over specificity. Exploratory scenario modeling illustrated that, under specified prevalence and threshold assumptions, AI-assisted triage could be associated with 12-38 fewer missed critical illness cases and 45-120 additional false-positive escalations per 10,000 ED visits. Economic and equity findings were assumption-dependent projections rather than observed clinical, cost-effectiveness, or equity outcomes.Conclusions AI- and ML-assisted triage models demonstrate promising discrimination for adult ED risk stratification; however, AUC-based discrimination does not establish superiority at clinically relevant decision thresholds, improved patient outcomes, or readiness for clinical implementation. Interpretation is limited by substantial heterogeneity, incomplete threshold-level performance and calibration reporting, limited external validation, and sparse pediatric evidence. Prospective multicenter validation, workflow assessment, subgroup calibration and equity auditing, and formal economic evaluation are required before routine implementation.
SN - 1439-4456
SN - 1438-8871
ER -