Public Health · 2 h ago
Scoping review finds limited evidence for UAV-assisted emergency triage
A scoping review of 20 studies mapped how unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been used to gather triage information and support decisions in mass-casualty and prehospital care. Evidence of clinical effectiveness was sparse: one randomized comparison found triage took about 3.5 minutes longer with UAV assistance, with identical accuracy.
- Review mapped 20 original studies across the remote-triage evidence chain.
- Most studies examined disaster and mass-casualty settings.
- One randomized comparison found no accuracy gain and longer triage time.
- Real-world validation and patient-centered outcomes were absent.
Conventional triage often requires direct contact with casualties, which may be difficult in hazardous or widely dispersed scenes. Researchers conducted a scoping review following Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidance, searching nine databases through March 15, 2026. They included 20 original studies and mapped them by their main contribution to the remote-triage evidence chain.
Sixteen studies concerned disasters or mass-casualty incidents; two focused on battlefield settings and two on daily or remote care. Eight studies examined remote data acquisition, including heart rate, respiratory rate, temperature, oxygen saturation, consciousness and visual localization. Eleven addressed decision support, including algorithmic prioritization and workflow integration. Only one study assessed effectiveness: in a randomized comparison, UAV-assisted triage took about 3.5 minutes longer, with the same accuracy as the comparator.
The review found no real-world emergency-response validation or patient-centered outcome assessment. No study reported the time from UAV tasking to transmission of a triage classification or compared it with responder arrival. Because the review did not formally appraise study quality, it maps the evidence rather than establishing effectiveness. The authors conclude that evidence is insufficient to support routine use and call for prospective field validation and assessment of operational timing.
In practice
For emergency and disaster-response teams, UAVs have demonstrated technical feasibility for remotely collecting triage-relevant information, but the available evidence does not establish that they improve triage or patient outcomes. Only one included study assessed effectiveness; UAV assistance took about 3.5 minutes longer with identical accuracy. The review found no validation in real-world emergency responses and no data on patient-centered outcomes or tasking-to-classification time relative to responder arrival. These findings do not support changing routine triage practice.
AI-generated clinical interpretation · Not editor-reviewed
Is this summary clinically accurate?
Help fellow clinicians: your rating sends inaccurate summaries straight to our editors.
Sign in to rate this summary →Source
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine: Remote triage with unmanned aerial vehicles in mass-casualty and prehospital emergency care: a scoping review ↗This is an automated AI-condensed summary that has not yet been reviewed by an editor. Always consult the full item at the original source.