| 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 |
• Language • Dentistry |
| Problem(s) |
• Literature searches not validated by information specialist • Language restriction |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Meta-epidemiological analysis |
| First Author Country | Syria |
| Aim | To explore whether including non-English language studies in orthodontic systematic reviews (SRs) published in high-impact orthodontic journals between 2017 and 2021, may affect meta-analyses results and to estimate the extent of language bias in orthodontic SRs. |
| Level of Investigation | Analytical |
| Summary of Findings | From 174 systematic reviews (SRs) published in high-impact orthodontic journals between 2017 and 2021. 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%). Only 37 (21%) SRs involved a librarian or/and search specialist. 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 (SMD = -0.29, 95%CI: -0.63 to 0.05, P = 0.37). |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 174 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 185 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | 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 (SMD = -0.29, 95%CI: -0.63 to 0.05, P = 0.37). |
| Interpretation impacted | No |
| Interpretation impacted description |