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

Ref ID 398
First Author B. Pham
Year Of Publishing 2005
Keywords Complimentary & Alternative
Problem(s) Language restriction
Number of systematic reviews included 42
Summary of Findings For conventional medicine interventions, language-restricted systematic reviews, compared with language-inclusive ones, did not introduce biased results, in terms of estimates of intervention effectiveness. For complimentary and alternative medicines interventions, however, language-restricted systematic reviews resulted in a 63% smaller protective effect estimate than language inclusive reviews
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Yes
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes