A I Dobrescu1, Streit B Nussbaumer2, I Klerings2, G Wagner2, E Persad2, I Sommer2, H Herkner3, G Gartlehner4. 1. Cochrane Austria, Danube University Krems, Krems a.d. Donau, Austria. Electronic address: andreea.dobrescu@donau-uni.ac.at. 2. Cochrane Austria, Danube University Krems, Krems a.d. Donau, Austria. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Austria. 4. Cochrane Austria, Danube University Krems, Krems a.d. Donau, Austria; RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of restricting systematic reviews of conventional or alternative medical treatments or diagnostic tests to English-language publications. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically searched MEDLINE (Ovid), the Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), and Current Contents Connect (Web of Science) up to April 24, 2020. Eligible methods studies assessed the impact of restricting systematic reviews to English-language publications on effect estimates and conclusions. Two reviewers independently screened the literature; one investigator performed the data extraction, a second investigator checked for completeness and accuracy. We synthesized the findings narratively. RESULTS: Eight methods studies (10 publications) met the inclusion criteria; none addressed language restrictions in diagnostic test accuracy reviews. The included studies analyzed nine to 147 meta-analyses and/or systematic reviews. The proportions of non-English-language publications ranged from 2% to 100%. Based on five methods studies, restricting literature searches or inclusion criteria to English-language publications led to a change in statistical significance in 23 out of 259 meta-analyses (9%). Most commonly, the statistical significance was lost, but had no impact on the conclusions of systematic reviews. CONCLUSION: Restricting systematic reviews to English-language publications appears to have little impact on the effect estimates and conclusions of systematic reviews.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of restricting systematic reviews of conventional or alternative medical treatments or diagnostic tests to English-language publications. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We systematically searched MEDLINE (Ovid), the Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), and Current Contents Connect (Web of Science) up to April 24, 2020. Eligible methods studies assessed the impact of restricting systematic reviews to English-language publications on effect estimates and conclusions. Two reviewers independently screened the literature; one investigator performed the data extraction, a second investigator checked for completeness and accuracy. We synthesized the findings narratively. RESULTS: Eight methods studies (10 publications) met the inclusion criteria; none addressed language restrictions in diagnostic test accuracy reviews. The included studies analyzed nine to 147 meta-analyses and/or systematic reviews. The proportions of non-English-language publications ranged from 2% to 100%. Based on five methods studies, restricting literature searches or inclusion criteria to English-language publications led to a change in statistical significance in 23 out of 259 meta-analyses (9%). Most commonly, the statistical significance was lost, but had no impact on the conclusions of systematic reviews. CONCLUSION: Restricting systematic reviews to English-language publications appears to have little impact on the effect estimates and conclusions of systematic reviews.
Authors: Andreea-Iulia Dobrescu; Agnes Ebenberger; Julia Harlfinger; Ursula Griebler; Irma Klerings; Barbara Nußbaumer-Streit; Andrea Chapman; Lisa Affengruber; Gerald Gartlehner Journal: Sci Total Environ Date: 2021-09-23 Impact factor: 7.963
Authors: Eva-Maria Grepmeier; Maja Pawellek; Janina Curbach; Julia von Sommoggy; Karl Philipp Drewitz; Claudia Hasenpusch; Eva Maria Bitzer; Christian Apfelbacher; Uwe Matterne Journal: JMIR Med Educ Date: 2022-10-17