1.Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York, UK: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 2009.
2.Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Identifying and measuring heterogeneity. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0. Oxford: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
3.Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52:377–384.
4.Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1–76.
5.Egger M, Zellweger-Zähner T, Schneider M, et al. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet. 1997;350:326–329.
6.Fung IC-H. Seek, and ye shall find: Accessing the global epidemiological literature in different languages. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2008;5:21.
7.Grégorie G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J. Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: Is there a tower of Babel bias? J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:159–163.
8.Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 ed. Oxford (UK): The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
9.Hottest journals of the millennium (so far). Sci Watch. 2005;16.
10.Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:1–12.
11.Jüni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, Bartlett C, Egger M. Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: Empirical study. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:115–123.
12.Moher D, Pham B, Lawson ML, Klassen TP. The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:iii-90.
13.Moher D, Fortin P, Jadad AR, et al. Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: Implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Lancet. 1996 February 10;347:363–366.
14.Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998;352:609–613.
15.Moher D, Pham B, Klassen TP, et al. What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses? J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:964–972.
16.Morrison A, Moulton K, Clark M, et al. English-language restriction when conducting systematic review-based metaanalyses: Systematic review of published studies. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2009.
17.National Cancer Institute. Conventional medicine. Dictionary of cancer terms. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2007.
18.Pan Z, Trikalinos TA, Kavvoura FK, Lau J, Ioannidis JPA. Local literature bias in genetic epidemiology: An empirical evaluation of the Chinese literature. Plos Med. 2005;2:1309–1317.
19.Pham B, Klassen TP, Lawson ML, Moher D. Language of publication restrictions in systematic reviews gave different results depending on whether the intervention was conventional or complementary. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:769–776.
20.Wilkin T, Gillies R, Davies K. EMBASE versus MEDLINE for family medicine searches. Can MEDLINE searches find the forest or a tree? Can Fam Physician. 2005;51:849–850.