Do I Have to Exclude Literature Based on Year Published in a Literature Review
- Curtailed Enquiry Reports
- Published:
How Frequently Do Systematic Reviews Exclude Articles Not Published in English?
Journal of General Internal Medicine volume 34,pages 1388–1389 (2019)Cite this commodity
Groundwork
Systematic reviews are an increasingly important part of the clinical prove base. Well-conducted reviews provide solid testify for clinical controlling, though there are a number of important biases that can impact on the validity of report conclusions. One of the quality markers for systematic reviews is the thoroughness of the search. Our written report'southward purpose was to appraise the frequency that systematic reviews are limited to studies published in English language.
METHODS
Nosotros searched in PUBMED using the search term "systematic review [pt]" through December xv, 2018. We reviewed the first 250 systematic reviews for the presence of whatever language brake and the number of not-English articles included or excluded. This review was washed in duplicate with disagreement reached by consensus.
RESULTS
Among 250 systematic reviews, nosotros found that 84 (34%) explicitly excluded not-English language articles, eighty (32%) had no statement about excluding non-English trials, though none included non-English articles, and 86 (34%) indicated that they did their search without language restriction. Of the 86 reviews without language restrictions, only xix (22%) included non-English trials, representing ii% of the total manufactures included in these studies.
DISCUSSION
A study that examined systematic reviews through 1993 found that about had linguistic communication restrictions with 93% excluding at least one non-English randomized controlled trial.1 This exclusion of non-English language studies is labeled "English language-language bias" or "Tower of Babel bias." We found that in the subsequent two decades, limiting searches to English-only is nevertheless common, with only 34% reporting having no language restrictions and few reviews including non-English trials. While 86% of journals are published in English, and the likelihood of citation is higher for English language-linguistic communication articles,ii this does not imply that non-English trials are lower quality. One 1995 report constitute no difference in quality pattern elements between English and other language trials,three though this written report was limited to European language articles. Studies examining the impact of including non-English language trials on review estimates of upshot have been mixed.4,v Articles published in German are less likely to exist significant than those published in English.six If this is true for other languages, there is a potential for bias in outcomes amidst reviews that are limited to English language-only. Including studies published in non-English language languages may have increased resources challenges with respect to costs, time, and expertise in non-English languages; however, inclusion volition help ensure generalizability and reduce the risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Limiting systematic reviews to English language-only is common in systematic reviews and could issue in biased estimates of outcome and reduce generalizability. Important inquiry questions for those conducting systematic reviews are whether online translation programs, such as Google Translate, are sufficiently accurate to allow the translation of non-English trials and whether such trials are of comparable quality to those published in English language.
References
-
Gregoire G, Derderian F, Le LJ. Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-assay: is there a Tower of Boom-boom bias? J Clin Epidemiol 1995;48(one):159–163.
-
Winkmann G, Schlutius S, Schweim HG. Citation rates of medical German-language journals in English-linguistic communication papers - do they correlate with the impact factor, and who cites?. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2002;127(4):138–143.
-
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;347(8998):363–366.
-
Juni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, Bartlett C, Egger Yard. Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. Int J Epidemiol 2002;31(ane):115–123.
-
Hartling L, Featherstone R, Nuspl M, Shave Thousand, Dryden DM, Vandermeer B. Grayness literature in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in kid-relevant reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2017;17(1):64.
-
Egger One thousand, Zellweger-Zahner T, Schneider Grand, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Linguistic communication bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet 1997;350(9074):326–329.
Author information
Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Involvement
The authors declare that they take no disharmonize of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jackson, J.50., Kuriyama, A. How Frequently Do Systematic Reviews Exclude Articles Not Published in English?. J GEN INTERN MED 34, 1388–1389 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-04976-x
-
Published:
-
Upshot Engagement:
-
DOI : https://doi.org/ten.1007/s11606-019-04976-ten
Source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-019-04976-x
0 Response to "Do I Have to Exclude Literature Based on Year Published in a Literature Review"
Post a Comment