Dataset Information

The prevalence of and factors associated with inclusion of non-English language studies in Campbell systematic reviews: a survey and meta-epidemiological study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Studies published in languages other than English are often neglected when research teams conduct systematic reviews. Literature on how to deal with non-English studies when conducting reviews have focused on the importance of including such studies, while less attention has been paid to the practical challenges of locating and assessing relevant non-English studies. We investigated the factors which might predict the inclusion of non-English studies in systematic reviews in the social sciences, to better understand how, when and why these are included/excluded. METHODS:We appraised all Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews (n = 123) published to July 2016, categorising each by its language inclusiveness. We sought additional information from review authors via a questionnaire and received responses concerning 47 reviews. Data were obtained for 17 factors and we explored correlations with the number of non-English studies in the reviews via statistical regression models. Additionally, we asked authors to identify factors that support or hinder the inclusion of non-English studies. RESULTS:Of 123 reviews, 108 did not explicitly exclude, and of these, 17 included non-English language studies. One factor correlated with the number of included non-English studies across all models: the number of countries in which the members of the review team work (B-value = 0.56; SE B = 0.24; 95% CI = 0.07-1.03; p = 0.02). This indicates that reviews which included non-English studies were more likely to be produced by international review teams. Our survey showed a dominance of researchers from English-speaking countries (52.9%) and review teams consisting only of team members from these countries (65.9%). The most frequently mentioned challenge to including non-English studies was a lack of resources (funding and time) followed by a lack of language resources (e.g. professional translators). CONCLUSION:Our findings may indicate a connection between the limited inclusion of non-English studies and a lack of resources, which forces review teams to rely on their limited language skills rather than the support of professional translators. If unaddressed, review teams risk ignoring key data and introduce bias in otherwise high-quality reviews. However, the validity and interpretation of our findings should be further assessed if we are to tackle the challenges of dealing with non-English studies.

SUBMITTER: Neimann Rasmussen L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6107944 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSometimes, observational studies may provide important evidence that allow inferences of causality between exposure and outcome (although on most occasions only low certainty evidence). Authors, frequently and perhaps usually at the behest of the journals to which they are submitting, avoid using causal language when addressing evidence from observational studies. This is true even when the issue of interest is the causal effect of an intervention or exposure. Clarity of thinking and appropriateness of inferences may be enhanced through the use of language that reflects the issue under consideration. The objectives of this study are to systematically evaluate the extent and nature of causal language use in systematic reviews of observational studies and to relate that to the actual intent of the investigation.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic survey of systematic reviews of observational studies addressing modifiable exposures and their possible impact on patient-important outcomes. We will randomly select 200 reviews published in 2019, stratified in a 1:1 ratio by use and non-use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Teams of two reviewers will independently assess study eligibility and extract data using a standardised data extraction forms, with resolution of disagreement by discussion and, if necessary, by third party adjudication. Through examining the inferences, they make in their papers' discussion, we will evaluate whether the authors' intent was to address causation or association. We will summarise the use of causal language in the study title, abstract, study question and results using descriptive statistics. Finally, we will assess whether the language used is consistent with the intention of the authors. We will determine whether results in reviews that did or did not use GRADE differ.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval for this study is not required. We will disseminate the results through publication in a peer-reviewed journals.RegistrationOpen Science Framework (osf.io/vh8yx).

Project description:The exact pathogenic mechanism of knee osteoarthritis (OA) is still unknown. With the exception of clinical treatment to alleviate symptoms, or total knee replacement, there is currently no effective treatment method. Consequently, an in-depth etiological and epidemiological study of knee OA can provide clues for diagnosis, treatment and scientific research, and will ultimately have a beneficial effect on public health.A cross-sectional community study in the rural village of Gaoyou was conducted in 3428 Chinese adults (aged ≥ 40 years). Subjects completed an interviewer-administered questionnaire, evaluating knee pain and associated disability, analgesia, use of health services, past medical history, walking, income, smoking, and use of oral contraceptives, and standardized weight-bearing knee radiographs were obtained. Patient demographic characteristics and biochemical parameters were recorded.Single-factor regression analysis indicated that age, overweight, central adiposity, high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC), high total cholesterol (TC), high triglycerides (TG), dyslipidemia, hypertension and low income were the associated factors for knee OA in females; age, high LDLC, hypertension, low income and frequent walking were the associated factors for knee OA in males. Interestingly, male heavy smokers were less likely to develop severe knee OA compared with non-smokers. Stepwise logistic regression analysis indicated that age and overweight were the associated factors for knee OA for all individuals. Although central adiposity, high LDLC, high TC, high TG, dyslipidemia, hypertension and low income appeared to be related to knee OA in females according to univariate analysis, these factors were not identified in stepwise logistic regression analysis. In addition although age, high LDLC, hypertension and frequent walking were also the associated factors for knee OA in males by stepwise logistic regression analysis, smoking as a protective factor was not identified in this analysis.In this study, aging, obesity, frequent walking, low income and relevant multiple metabolic disorders were the associated factors for knee OA. Smoking might be associated with a lower prevalence of OA in male smokers according to univariate analysis. A retrospective association of smoking with OA may constitute an important etiologic clue, but further well-designed, large-scale prospective controlled trials are required to confirm these findings.

Dataset Information

The prevalence of and factors associated with inclusion of non-English language studies in Campbell systematic reviews: a survey and meta-epidemiological study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets