Remote triage with unmanned aerial vehicles in mass-casualty and prehospital emergency care: a scoping review

Triage is critical in mass-casualty and prehospital emergency care, yet conventional systems rely on direct casualty contact, often infeasible in hazardous, wide-area, or dispersed scenes. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been proposed to obtain triage-relevant information before responder arrival, but the evidence is fragmented across disciplines. This scoping review maps it as a sequential chain: what can be acquired remotely, how it becomes a decision, and whether it changes outcomes. Following Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, nine electronic databases were searched for studies published from database inception to 15 March 2026. Twenty original studies met the inclusion criteria. Each was assigned to a single evidence-chain stage according to its primary contribution. Evidence was concentrated in disaster and mass-casualty settings ( n = 16), with battlefield ( n = 2) and daily/remote care ( n = 2) underrepresented. Along the chain, acquisition studies ( n = 8) reported heart rate, respiratory rate, temperature, oxygen saturation, consciousness, and visual localization; decision-support studies ( n = 11) comprised algorithmic prioritization ( n = 6), workflow integration ( n = 4), and one ethical framework. Only one study reached the effectiveness link: in a randomized comparison, triage took about 3.5 min longer with UAV assistance, with identical accuracy. Standoff distances and capture windows were reported consistently, but no study reported the interval from tasking to a transmitted classification, or compared it against responder arrival. Technical feasibility of data acquisition has been demonstrated under controlled conditions, but evidence on triage performance remains limited, with no validation in real-world emergency responses or assessment of patient-centered outcomes. Three gaps persist across all scenarios: there is no validated remote triage standard, validation in real-world responses is absent, and operational timing remains unquantified. We propose four research priorities: adapting existing triage frameworks for remote sensing, prospective field validation, sensing for casualties without external signs, and multi-stakeholder work on regulation, interoperability, and cost-effectiveness. Without formal quality appraisal this review maps evidence rather than adjudicating effectiveness; evidence remains insufficient to establish effectiveness in routine emergency care. Not applicable.