Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 58, Issue 8 , Pages 769-776.e2 , August 2005

Language of publication restrictions in systematic reviews gave different results depending on whether the intervention was conventional or complementary

  • Ba' Pham

      Affiliations

    • BioMedical Data Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    • Chalmers Research Group, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, 401 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 2R7, Canada
    • ,
  • Terry P. Klassen

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    • ,
  • Margaret L. Lawson

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    • ,
  • David Moher

      Affiliations

    • Chalmers Research Group, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, 401 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 2R7, Canada
    • Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    • Department of Epidemiology & Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel. 613-738-3591.

,Accepted 30 August 2004.

References 

  1. Grégoire G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J. Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a Tower of Babel bias?. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:159–163
  2. Moher D, Fortin P, Jadad AR, Jüni P, Klassen T, Le Lorier J, et al. Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Lancet. 1996;347:363–366
  3. Chalmers TC, Levin H, Sacks HS, Reitman D, Berrier J, Nagalingam R. Meta-analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline. I: Control of bias and comparison with large co-operative trials. Stat Med. 1987;6:315–328
  4. Chalmers TC, Berrier J, Sacks HS, Levin H, Reitman D, Nagalingam R. Meta-analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline. II: Replicate variability and comparison of studies that agree and disagree. Stat Med. 1987;6:733–744
  5. Moher D, Pham B, Klassen TP, Schulz KF, Berlin JA, Jadad AR, et al. What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses?. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:964–972
  6. Moher D, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Tugwell P, Moher M, Jones A, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3:i–iv,1–98
  7. Moher D, Pham B, Lawson M, Klassen TP. The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1–90
  8. Kemper KJ, Cassileth B, Ferris T. Holistic pediatrics: a research agenda. Pediatrics. 1999;103:902–909
  9. Sampson M, Barrowman NJ, Moher D, Klassen TP, Pham B, Platt R, et al. Should meta-analysts search Embase in addition to Medline?. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:943–955
  10. Sterne JA, Jüni P, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Bartlett C, Egger M. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in ‘meta-epidemiological’ research. Stat Med. 2002;21:1513–1524
  11. Emerson JD. Combining estimates of the odds ratio: the state of the art. Stat Methods Med Res. 1994;3:157–178
  12. Robins J, Greenland S, Breslow NE. A general estimator for the variance of the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio. Am J Epidemiol. 1986;124:719–723
  13. Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press; 1985;
  14. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–188
  15. Macaskill P, Walter SD, Irwig L. A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2001;20:641–654
  16. Egger M, Smith GD. Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ. 1998;316:61–66
  17. Schmid CH, Lau J, McIntosh MW, Cappelleri JC. An empirical study of the effect of the control rate as a predictor of treatment efficacy in meta-analysis of clinical trials. Stat Med. 1998;17:1923–1942
  18. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–1558
  19. Lawson ML, Pham B, Klassen TP, Moher D. Systematic reviews involving complementary and alternative medicine interventions had higher quality of reporting than conventional medicine reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:778–785(this issue)
  20. White AR, Rampes H, Ernst E. Acupuncture for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;CD000009
  21. Jüni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, Bartlett C, Egger M. Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:115–123[Available at: http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/31/1/115]
  22. In:  Egger M,  Smith GD,  Altman DG editor. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed.. London: BMJ Books; 2001;
  23. Moher D, Soeken K, Sampson M, Ben-Porat L, Berman B. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine. BMC Pediatr. 2002;2:3;[electronic journal] Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/tocrender.fcgi?journal=55&action=archive
  24. Egger M, Jüni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1–76
  25. Vickers A, Goyal N, Harland R, Rees R. Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Control Clin Trials. 1998;19:159–166
  26. Thompson SG. Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated. BMJ. 1994;309:1351–1355
  27. Egger M, Zellweger-Zahner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. Lancet. 1997;350:326–329
  28. Pittler MH, Abbot NC, Harkness EF, Ernst E. Location bias in controlled clinical trials of complementary/alternative therapies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:485–489
  29. Anonymous, editors. Evaluating the alternatives [theme issue]. Med Student JAMA [electronic journal]; JAMA 1998;279:705–706. Available at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/vol279/issue9/msindex.dtl.
  30. Anonymous . Integrated medicine: orthodox meets alternative. [theme issue] BMJ. 2001;322:119–124154–168. Available at: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/content/vol322/issue7279/
  31. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–1558
  32. Thompson SG, Higgins JP. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?. Stat Med. 2002;21:1559–1573

PII: S0895-4356(05)00059-4

doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.08.021

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 58, Issue 8 , Pages 769-776.e2 , August 2005

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution