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

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 conclus...

Celý popis

Uloženo v:
Podrobná bibliografie
Vydáno v:International journal of technology assessment in health care Ročník 28; číslo 2; s. 138 - 144
Hlavní autoři: Morrison, Andra, Polisena, Julie, Husereau, Don, Moulton, Kristen, Clark, Michelle, Fiander, Michelle, Mierzwinski-Urban, Monika, Clifford, Tammy, Hutton, Brian, Rabb, Danielle
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:angličtina
Vydáno: New York, USA Cambridge University Press 01.04.2012
Témata:
Alternative medicine
Bias
Bibliographic data bases
Clinical trials
Constrictions
Data Collection
Databases, Bibliographic
Databases, Factual
Design engineering
English language
Estimates
Health care
Health services
Health technology assessment
Humans
Inclusions
Information Dissemination - methods
Language
Literature reviews
Medicine
Meta-analysis
Meta-Analysis as Topic
Publication Bias
Publishing
R&D
Research & development
Restrictions
Review Literature as Topic
Systematic review
Conventional medicine
Meta-analyses
Methodology
Language bias
ISSN:0266-4623, 1471-6348, 1471-6348
On-line přístup:Získat plný text
Tagy: Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
Popis
Shrnutí: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.
Bibliografie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ObjectType-Review-3
content type line 23
ObjectType-Undefined-4
ObjectType-Article-2
ObjectType-Feature-1
ISSN:0266-4623
1471-6348
1471-6348
DOI:10.1017/S0266462312000086