The effect of english-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: A systematic review of empirical studies

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 138-144

  Morrison, Andra ^a   Polisena, Julie ^a   Husereau, Don ^b,c   Moulton, Kristen ^a   Clark, Michelle ^a   Fiander, Michelle ^d   Mierzwinski Urban, Monika ^a   Clifford, Tammy ^a,c   Hutton, Brian ^e   Rabb, Danielle ^a  

^a CANADIAN AGENCY FOR DRUGS AND TECHNOLOGIES IN HEALTH   (Canada)

^b Medizinische Informatik and Technik GmbH   (Austria)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^d Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group   (Canada)

^e OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Conventional medicine; Language bias; Meta analyses; Methodology

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; ENGLISH LANGUAGES; GREY LITERATURE; LANGUAGE BIAS; LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE; LITERATURE SEARCH; META ANALYSIS; METHODOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC BIAS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TREATMENT EFFECTS;

INFORMATION SERVICES;

MEDICINE;

DATA ANALYSIS; FUNDING; LANGUAGE ABILITY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); REVIEW; STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC);

DATA COLLECTION; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; DATABASES, FACTUAL; HUMANS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; LANGUAGE; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PUBLICATION BIAS; PUBLISHING; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84860746569     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462312000086     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care.York, UK: Centre forReviews 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 nonrandomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52:377-384. (Pubitemid 28438523)
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-Zaähner T, Schneider M, et al. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet. 1997;350:326-329. (Pubitemid 27351115)
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. (Pubitemid 26120810)
11. Juäni 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. (Pubitemid 34284912)
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. (Pubitemid 26046104)
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. (Pubitemid 28380142)
15. Moher D, Pham B, Klassen TP, et al. What contributions do languages other than Englishmake on the results of meta-analyses? JClin 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. (Pubitemid 43020990)
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. (Pubitemid 40966834)
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.