We conducted a systematic review of remote interpretation. Any published or unpublished research article that had telephone or videoconferenced interpretation as an intervention was included in the review. Nine articles were identified: seven on telephone and two on videoconferenced interpretation. Only one study was a randomized controlled trial. Remote interpretation was associated with shorter intervals between consultations, but there were no consistent differences in relation to consultation length. Client and doctor satisfaction was as good with remote interpretation as with face-to-face interpretation, but interpreters preferred face-to-face interpretation. Although the costs associated with remote interpreting are higher, especially in the case of videoconferencing, these may be offset by efficiency gains. The review suggests that remote interpretation is an acceptable and accurate alternative to traditional methods, although the associated costs are higher.