What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses?

What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses? Including only a portion of all available evidence may introduce systematic errors into the meta-analytic process and threaten its validity. We set out to examine whether language restricted meta-analyses, compared to language inclusive meta-analyses, provide different estimates of the effectiveness of interventions evaluated in randomized trials. We identified and retrieved all 79 meta-analyses from several disease areas in which explicit eligibility criteria regarding trial selection were reported. General characteristics and quality of reporting of the meta-analyses were assessed using a validated instrument. We explored the effects of language of publication of the randomized trials on the quantitative results using logistic regression analyses. Language restricted meta-analyses, compared to language inclusive meta-analyses, did not differ with respect to the estimate of benefit of the effectiveness of an intervention (ROR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.81–1.17). These results were also robust after a series of sensitivity analyses. This study provides no evidence that language restricted meta-analyses lead to biased estimates of intervention effectiveness. We encourage others to replicate this study using different sampling frames, clinical topics and interventions. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Elsevier

What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses?

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/what-contributions-do-languages-other-than-english-make-on-the-results-tnzTNt1h5q
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 Elsevier Science Inc.
ISSN
0895-4356
D.O.I.
10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00188-8
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Including only a portion of all available evidence may introduce systematic errors into the meta-analytic process and threaten its validity. We set out to examine whether language restricted meta-analyses, compared to language inclusive meta-analyses, provide different estimates of the effectiveness of interventions evaluated in randomized trials. We identified and retrieved all 79 meta-analyses from several disease areas in which explicit eligibility criteria regarding trial selection were reported. General characteristics and quality of reporting of the meta-analyses were assessed using a validated instrument. We explored the effects of language of publication of the randomized trials on the quantitative results using logistic regression analyses. Language restricted meta-analyses, compared to language inclusive meta-analyses, did not differ with respect to the estimate of benefit of the effectiveness of an intervention (ROR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.81–1.17). These results were also robust after a series of sensitivity analyses. This study provides no evidence that language restricted meta-analyses lead to biased estimates of intervention effectiveness. We encourage others to replicate this study using different sampling frames, clinical topics and interventions.

Journal

Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyElsevier

Published: Sep 1, 2000

References

  • Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis
    Grégoire, G; Derderian, F; LeLorier, J
  • Meta-analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline. II
    Chalmers, T.C; Berrier, J; Sacks, H.S; Levin, H; Reitman, D; Nagalingam, R
  • Beta-blockade during and after myocardial infarction
    Yusuf, S; Peto, R; Lewis, J; Collins, R; Sleight, P
  • Publication bias
    Simes, R.J
  • Meta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions
    Jadad, A.R; McQuay, H.J

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off