Background <p>Plain radiography remains a first-line assessment tool for emergency departments’ trauma patients. Given the urgency of trauma care, emergency department doctors, including junior doctors, often perform initial trauma X-ray interpretations to support timely patient management when there is an unavailability of an immediate radiologist report. However, trauma X-ray interpretation is challenging, and inaccuracies can impact patient care. This study evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of emergency department junior doctors on the initial interpretation of trauma X-rays by systematically reviewing and meta-analysing existing research on the subject.</p> Method <p>Studies were identified from PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, and by checking the reference lists of relevant studies. Quality assessment of included studies was evaluated using the QUADAS-2 tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using bivariate models, with summary estimates reported as sensitivity, specificity, and the SROC. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the sources of heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed using Deeks’ funnel plot.</p> Results <p>Seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. Across the studies, pooled sensitivity, specificity and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were 0.65 (95% CI = 0.47–0.80), 0.89 (95% CI = 0.77–0.95), and 0.86 (95% CI = 0.83–0.89), respectively. Covariate analysis per anatomical region of trauma X-rays showed that for skeletal region, pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 0.72 (95% CI = 0.55–0.85), 0.86 (95% CI = 0.73–0.93), and 0.87 (95% CI = 0.83–0.89), respectively and for appendicular region, pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC were 0.68 (95% CI = 0.49–0.82), 0.82 (95% CI = 0.62–0.93), and 0.81 (95% CI = 0.77–0.84), respectively. Substantial heterogeneity was identified but was not due to a threshold effect (Spearman rho = 0.29(<i>p</i> = 0.49)). Meta-regression and subgroup analysis revealed that anatomical-region-specific trauma X-ray interpretation and accuracy assessment techniques influenced heterogeneity. No publication bias was identified (<i>p</i> = 0.41).</p> Conclusion <p>Emergency department junior doctors’ accuracy in the initial interpretation of trauma X-rays was moderate. The findings further suggest a high likelihood of missed abnormalities when they interpret trauma X-rays. This highlights the need for support strategies to enhance their diagnostic accuracy to strengthen clinical decision-making in trauma care.</p> Clinical trial number <p>Not applicable.</p>