Journal
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 53, Issue 9, Pages 964-972Publisher
ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00188-8
Keywords
meta-analysis; randomized controlled trials; methodology; bias; language of publication
Ask authors/readers for more resources
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. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Tnc. All rights reserved.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available