Journal of clinical epidemiology
-
To assess whether language of publication restrictions impact the estimates of an intervention's effectiveness, whether such impact is similar for conventional medicine and complementary medicine interventions, and whether the results are influenced by publication bias and statistical heterogeneity. ⋯ Language restrictions do not change the results of CM systematic reviews but do substantially alter the results of CAM systematic reviews. These findings are robust even after sensitivity analyses, and do not appear to be influenced by statistical heterogeneity and publication bias.
-
To compare the quality of reporting of reports randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English and in languages other than English (LOE), and to determine whether there were differences between conventional medicine (CM) and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) reports. ⋯ The overall quality of reports published in languages other than English is similar to that of English-language reports. Moreover, the overall quality of reporting of RCTs of CAM interventions is as good as that for CM interventions.
-
To compare the quality of systematic reviews reported in English and in languages other than English, and to determine whether there are differences between conventional medicine (CM) and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) reports. ⋯ Informal comparison of the OG scale with the data collected on quality assessments showed that the OG scale performs well overall but may not identify important differences in comprehensiveness of the search strategy and avoidance of bias in study selection. Further research is required to determine the best methods for assessing quality of systematic reviews and whether the effect of language restrictions is dependent on the type of intervention (CM or CAM).