- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Language restriction
- 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? |