Background Lately, the number of systematic reviews published has increased substantially.
Many systematic reviews exclude trials published in languages other than English.
However, there is little empirical evidence to support this action.
We looked for differences in the completeness of reporting between trials published in other languages and those published in English, to see whether the exclusion of trials published in other languages is justified.
Methods We compared completeness of reporting, design characteristics, and analytical approaches of 133 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English between 1989 and 1994 and 96 published in French, German, Italian, or Spanish during the same time.
RCTs were identified by hand searching of journals (seven in English and six in the other languages).
Findings We found no significant differences between trials published in English and other-language trials for any single item in the completeness of reporting scale (randomisation, double-blinding, withdrawals), or for the overall score (percentage of maximum possible score 51.0% for trials in English, 46.2% for trials in other languages ; 95% Cl for difference - 1.1 to 10.5).
Other-language trials were more likely than English-language trials to have adult participants, to use two or more interventions, and to compare two or more active treatments without an untreated control group.
Trials in other languages were less likely to report a clearly pres...
Mots-clés Pascal : Littérature scientifique, Publication internationale, Langue, Anglais, Rejet, Santé publique, Homme
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Scientific literature, International publication, Tongue, English, Rejection, Human
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 96-0152661
Code Inist : 002B30A11. Création : 199608.