Objectives:The English language is generally perceived to be the universal language of science. However, the exclusive reliance on English-language studies may not represent all of the evidence. Excluding languages other than English (LOE) may introduce a language bias and lead to erroneous conclusions.Study Design and Setting:We conducted a comprehensive literature search using bibliographic databases and grey literature sources. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they measured the effect of excluding randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in LOE from systematic review-based meta-analyses (SR/MA) for one or more outcomes.Results:None of the included studies found major differences between summary treatment effects in English-language restricted meta-analyses and LOE-inclusive meta-analyses. Findings differed about the methodological and reporting quality of trials reported in LOE. The precision of pooled estimates improved with the inclusion of LOE trials.Conclusions:Overall, we found no evidence of a systematic bias from the use of language restrictions in systematic review-based meta-analyses in conventional medicine. Further research is needed to determine the impact of language restriction on systematic reviews in particular fields of medicine.

We conducted a systematic review of the literature about home telehealth for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) compared with usual care. An electronic literature search identified 6241 citations. From these, nine original studies (10 references) relating to 858 patients were selected for inclusion in the review. Four studies compared home telemonitoring with usual care, and six randomized controlled trials compared telephone support with usual care. Clinical heterogeneity was present in many of the outcomes measured. Home telehealth (home telemonitoring and telephone support) was found to reduce rates of hospitalization and emergency department visits, while findings for hospital bed days of care varied between studies. However, the mortality rate was greater in the telephone-support group compared with usual care (risk ratio = 1.21; 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.75). Home telehealth interventions were similar or better than usual care for quality of life and patient satisfaction outcomes.

BackgroundHealth care decision makers often need to make decisions in limited timeframes and cannot await the completion of a full evidence review. Rapid reviews (RRs), utilizing streamlined systematic review methods, are increasingly being used to synthesize the evidence with a shorter turnaround time. Our primary objective was to describe the processes and methods used internationally to produce RRs. In addition, we sought to understand the underlying themes associated with these programs.MethodsWe contacted representatives of international RR programs from a broad realm in health care to gather information about the methods and processes used to produce RRs. The responses were summarized narratively to understand the characteristics associated with their processes and methods. The summaries were compared and contrasted to highlight potential themes and trends related to the different RR programs.ResultsTwenty-nine international RR programs were included in our sample with a broad organizational representation from academia, government, research institutions, and non-for-profit organizations. Responses revealed that the main objectives for RRs were to inform decision making with regards to funding health care technologies, services and policy, and program development. Central themes that influenced the methods used by RR programs, and report type and dissemination were the imposed turnaround time to complete a report, resources available, the complexity and sensitivity of the research topics, and permission from the requestor.ConclusionsOur study confirmed that there is no standard approach to conduct RRs. Differences in processes and methods across programs may be the result of the novelty of RR methods versus other types of evidence syntheses, customization of RRs for various decision makers, and definition of ‘rapid’ by organizations, since it impacts both the timelines and the evidence synthesis methods. Future research should investigate the impact of current RR methods and reporting to support informed health care decision making, the effects of potential biases that may be introduced with streamlined methods, and the effectiveness of RR reporting guidelines on transparency.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0022-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

We conducted a systematic review of the literature about home telemonitoring compared with usual care. An electronic literature search was conducted to identify studies of home telemonitoring use in congestive heart failure (CHF) patients. Twenty-one original studies on home telemonitoring for patients with CHF were included (3082 patients). A random effects model was used to compute treatment efficacy to measure the average effect of the intervention across all studies where the quantitative pooling of results was appropriate. Home telemonitoring reduced mortality (risk ratio = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.48-0.85) compared with usual care. Several studies suggested that home telemonitoring also helped to lower the number of hospitalizations and the use of other health services. Patient quality of life and satisfaction with home telemonitoring were similar or better than with usual care. More studies of higher methodological quality are required to give more precise information about the potential clinical effectiveness of home telehealth interventions.