Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

THE EFFECT OF ENGLISH-LANGUAGE RESTRICTION ON SYSTEMATIC REVIEW-BASED META-ANALYSES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES

  • Andra Morrison (a1), Julie Polisena (a2), Don Husereau (a3), Kristen Moulton (a1), Michelle Clark (a1), Michelle Fiander (a4), Monika Mierzwinski-Urban (a1), Tammy Clifford (a5), Brian Hutton (a6) and Danielle Rabb (a1)...
Abstract

Objectives: The English language is generally perceived to be the universal language of science. However, the exclusive reliance on English-language studies may not represent all of the evidence. Excluding languages other than English (LOE) may introduce a language bias and lead to erroneous conclusions.

Study Design and Setting: We conducted a comprehensive literature search using bibliographic databases and grey literature sources. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they measured the effect of excluding randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in LOE from systematic review-based meta-analyses (SR/MA) for one or more outcomes.

Results: None of the included studies found major differences between summary treatment effects in English-language restricted meta-analyses and LOE-inclusive meta-analyses. Findings differed about the methodological and reporting quality of trials reported in LOE. The precision of pooled estimates improved with the inclusion of LOE trials.

Conclusions: Overall, we found no evidence of a systematic bias from the use of language restrictions in systematic review-based meta-analyses in conventional medicine. Further research is needed to determine the impact of language restriction on systematic reviews in particular fields of medicine.

Copyright
References
Hide All
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;52:377384.
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;7:176.
5.Egger M, Zellweger-Zähner T, Schneider M, et al. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet. 1997;350:326329.
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;48:159163.
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;17:112.
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;31:115123.
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;347:363366.
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;352:609613.
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;53:964972.
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;2:13091317.
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;58:769776.
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;51:849850.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 16
Total number of PDF views: 176 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 1055 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 21st October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.