Systematic reviews with language restrictions and no author contact have lower overall credibility: A methodology study

Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 7, Issue , 2015, Pages 243-247

  Wang, Zhen ^a   Brito, Juan P ^a   Tsapas, Apostolos ^b   Griebeler, Marcio L ^a   Alahdab, Fares ^a   Murad, Mohammad Hassan ^a  

^a MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^b ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI   (Greece)

Author keywords

Evidence based medicine; Quality of evidence; Research design; Validity

Indexed keywords

A MEASUREMENT TOOL TO ASSESS SYSTEMATIC REVIEW SCORE; ARTICLE; DATA ANALYSIS; ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; LANGUAGE RESTRICTION; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROTOCOL COMPLIANCE; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; SCORING SYSTEM; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC);

EID: 84937002704     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11791349     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/CLEP.S78879     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Chang SM. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) effective health care (EHC) program methods guide for comparative effectiveness reviews: keeping up-to-date in a rapidly evolving field. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64(11): 1166-1167.
2. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2008.
3. Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S, editors; Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research; Institute of Medicine (US). Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
4. Murad MH, Montori VM, Ioannidis JP, et al. How to read a systematic review and meta-analysis and apply the results to patient care: users' guides to the medical literature. Jama. 2014; 312(2): 171-179.
5. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007; 7: 10.
6. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991; 44(11): 1271-1278.
7. Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, et al. Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med. 1994; 120(8): 667-676.
8. Sacks HS, Reitman D, Pagano D, Kupelnick B. Meta-analysis: an update. Mt Sinai J Med. 1996; 63(3-4): 216-224.
9. Auperin A, Pignon JP, Poynard T. Review article: critical review of meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials in hepatogastroenterology. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1997; 11(2): 215-225.
10. Beck CT. Use of meta-analysis as a teaching strategy in nursing research courses. J Nurs Educ. 1997; 36(2): 87-90.
11. Smith AF. An analysis of review articles published in four anaesthesia journals. Can J Anaesth. 1997; 44(4): 405-409.
12. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62(10): 1013-1020.
13. Shea BJ, Bouter LM, Peterson J, et al. External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One. 2007; 2(12): e1350.
14. Mullan RJ, Flynn DN, Carlberg B, et al. Systematic reviewers commonly contact study authors but do so with limited rigor. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62(2): 138-142.
15. Brito JP, Tsapas A, Griebeler ML, et al. Systematic reviews supporting practice guideline recommendations lack protection against bias. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66(6): 633-638.
16. McGinn T, Wyer PC, Newman TB, Keitz S, Leipzig R, For GG. Tips for learners of evidence-based medicine: 3. Measures of observer variability (kappa statistic). Cmaj. 2004; 171(11): 1369-1373.
17. Web of ScienceTM. [homepage on the Internet]. 2012 Journal Citation Reports. Thomson Reuters. Available from: http://www. isiwebofknowledge. com. Accessed March 17, 2015.
18. Egger M, Zellweger-Zähner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet. 1997; 350(9074): 326-329.
19. Heres S, Wagenpfeil S, Hamann J, Kissling W, Leucht S. Language bias in neuroscience-is the Tower of Babel located in Germany? Eur Psychiatry. 2004; 19(4): 230-232.
20. Vickers A, Goyal N, Harland R, Rees R. Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Control Clin Trials. 1998; 19(2): 159-166.
21. 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): 1-76.
22. Grégoire 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(1): 159-163.
23. 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(1): 115-123.
24. 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(9): 964-972.
25. 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(8): 769-776.