Language bias in orthodontic systematic reviews: A meta-study

Ref ID 1044
First Author S. Mheissen
Journal PLOS ONE
Year Of Publishing 2024
URL https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0300881
Keywords
Problem(s) Literature searches not validated by information specialist
Language restriction
Number of systematic reviews included 174
Summary of Findings Non-English studies were included in around one quarter (n = 45/174, 26%) of the SRs, representing 3.78% of the total included studies in orthodontic SRs (98/2568). There were explicit language restrictions in 39 of the reviews (22%). The meta-epidemiological analysis revealed that non-English studies tended to overestimate the summary SMD by approximately 0.30, but this was not statistically significant when random-effects model was employed due to substantial statistical heterogeneity (ΔSMD = -0.29, 95%CI: -0.63 to 0.05, P = 0.37). Only 37 (21%) SRs involved a librarian or/and search specialist.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? No
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?