| Ref ID | 94 |
| First Author | D. Moher |
| Journal | HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT |
| Year Of Publishing | 2003 |
| URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14670218/ |
| Keywords |
• Language • Complementary & Alternative |
| Problem(s) |
• Language restriction |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Canada |
| Aim | To assess the quality and the overall findings of a large dataset of language restricted and language inclusive systematic reviews, including both conventional medicine and complimentary and alternative medicine from systematic reviews published across several databases between 1985 and 1999. |
| Level of Investigation | Analytical |
| Summary of Findings | Language restrictions did not appear to bias the estimates of a conventional intervention’s effectiveness but did affect the results of a complimentary and alternative systematic review. If languages other than English reports were excluded this resulted in a reduced intervention effect, 63% on average (difference in the ratio of odds ratios of intervention = 1.63; 95% confidence interval: 1.03 to 2.60). |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 130 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 280 |
| Treatment impacted | Yes |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Yes |
| Interpretation impacted description | For complimentary and alternative interventions, language restrictions altered the intervention effect, but not for systematic review of conventional medicine. |