An efficient strategy allowed English-speaking reviewers to identify foreign-language articles eligible for a systematic review

Busse, Jason W.; Bruno, Paul; Malik, Keshena; Connell, Gaelan; Torrance, David; Ngo, Trung; Kirmayr, Karin; Avrahami, Daniel; Riva, John J.; Ebrahim, Shanil; Struijs, Peter; Brunarski, David; Burnie, Stephen J; LeBlanc, Frances; Coomes, Eric A.; Steenstra, Ivan; Slack, Tesha; Rodine, Robert; Jim, Janey; Montori, Víctor M.; Guyatt, Gordon

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.07.022

Cited by 17 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, reviewers need to balance the use of resources with the gains made in terms of the number of additional eligible studies found by searching in languages other than English. It has been proposed that, for randomized trials, initial eligibility screening might be carried out even without knowledge of the relevant language, using English-language abstracts, and indicators such as the number of authors listed and presence of a CONSORT participant flowchart [ 33 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for conducting systematic reviews of risk factors in low- and middle-income countries

Shenderovich

Eisner

Mikton

et al. 2016

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundRates of youth violence are disproportionately high in many low- and middle-income countries [LMICs] but existing reviews of risk factors focus almost exclusively on high-income countries. Different search strategies, including non-English language searches, might be required to identify relevant evidence in LMICs. This paper discusses methodological issues in systematic reviews aiming to include evidence from LMICs, using the example of a recent review of risk factors for child conduct problems and youth violence in LMICs.MethodsWe searched the main international databases, such as PsycINFO, Medline and EMBASE in English, as well as 12 regional databases in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Russian. In addition, we used internet search engines and Google Scholar, and contacted over 200 researchers and organizations to identify potentially eligible studies in LMICs.ResultsThe majority of relevant studies were identified in the mainstream databases, but additional studies were also found through regional databases, such as CNKI, Wangfang, LILACS and SciELO. Overall, 85 % of eligible studies were in English, and 15 % were reported in Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian or French. Among eligible studies in languages other than English, two-thirds were identified only by regional databases and one-third was also indexed in the main international databases.ConclusionsThere are many studies on child conduct problems and youth violence in LMICs which have not been included in prior reviews. Most research on these subjects in LMICs has been produced in the last two-three decades and mostly in middle-income countries, such as China, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa and Russia. Based on our findings, it appears that many studies of child conduct problems and youth violence in LMICs are reported in English, Chinese, Spanish and Portuguese, but few such studies are published in French, Arabic or Russian. If non-English language searches and screening had not been conducted in the current review, 15 % of eligible studies would have been missed. Although there are benefits to non-English language searches and the inclusion of non-English studies in meta-analyses, systematic reviewers also need to consider the resources required to incorporate multi-lingual research.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0134-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for conducting systematic reviews of risk factors in low- and middle-income countries

Shenderovich

Eisner

Mikton

et al. 2016

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One limitation of the review is the exclusion of non-English studies. Although focusing on English studies might lead to the loss of an appreciable number of eligible studies in clinical systematic reviews [ 7 ], this may be less of an issue for systematic surveys.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Handling trial participants with missing outcome data when conducting a meta-analysis: a systematic survey of proposed approaches

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWhen potentially associated with the likelihood of outcome, missing participant data represents a serious potential source of bias in randomized trials. Authors of systematic reviews frequently face this problem when conducting meta-analyses. The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic survey of the relevant literature to identify proposed approaches for how systematic review authors should handle missing participant data when conducting a meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology register from inception to August 2014. We included papers that devoted at least two paragraphs to discuss a relevant approach for missing data. Five pairs of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, selected relevant papers. One reviewer abstracted data from included papers and a second reviewer verified them. We summarized the results narratively.ResultsOf 9,138 identified citations, we included 11 eligible papers. Four proposed general approaches for handling dichotomous outcomes, and all recommended a complete case analysis as the primary analysis and additional sensitivity analyses using the following imputation methods: based on reasons for missingness (n = 3), relative to risk among followed up (n = 3), best-case scenario (n = 2), and worst-case scenario (n = 3). Three of these approaches suggested taking uncertainty into account. Two papers proposed general approaches for handling continuous outcomes, and both proposed a complete case analysis as the reference analysis and the following imputation methods as sensitivity analyses: based on reasons for missingness (n = 2), based on the mean observed in the same trial or other trials (n = 1), and based on informative missingness differences in means (n = 1). The remaining eligible papers did not propose general approaches but addressed specific statistical issues.ConclusionsAll proposed approaches for handling missing participant data recommend conducting a complete case analysis for the primary analysis and some form of sensitivity analysis to evaluate robustness of results. Although these approaches require further testing, they may guide review authors in addressing missing participant data.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0083-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…One limitation of the review is the exclusion of non-English studies. Although there is evidence that exclusion of non-English studies might result in the loss of an appreciable number of eligible studies in clinical systematic reviews, 19 this may be less of an issue for methodological reviews. We did not implement duplicate data extraction, but a second reviewer checked all extracted data for accuracy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting missing participant data in randomised trials: systematic survey of the methodological literature and a proposed guide

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesWe conducted a systematic survey of the methodological literature to identify recommended approaches for how and what randomised clinical trial (RCT) authors should report on missing participant data and, on the basis of these approaches, to propose guidance for RCT authors.MethodsWe defined missing participant data (MPD) as missing outcome data for trial participants. We considered both categorical and continuous outcome data. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register for articles in which authors proposed approaches to reporting MPD from RCTs. We selected eligible articles independently and in duplicate and extracted data in duplicate. Using an iterative process of discussion and revisions, we used the findings to develop guidance.ResultsOf 10 501 unique citations identified, 13 articles reporting on 10 approaches proved eligible. The identified approaches recommend reporting the following aspects (from most to least frequently recommended): number of participants with MPD (n=10), reasons for MPD (n=7), methods used to handle MPD in the analysis (n=4), flow of participants (n=3), pattern of missingness (eg, whether at random) (n=3), differences in rates of MPD between trial arms (n=2), differences between participants with and without MPD (n=2), results of any sensitivity analyses (n=2), implication of MPD on interpreting the results (n=2) and methods used to prevent missing data (n=1). We propose a guide with nine items related to reporting the number, reasons, patterns, analytical methods and interpretation of MPD.ConclusionsMost identified approaches invite trial authors to report the extent of MPD and the underlying reasons. Fewer approaches focus on reporting missingness patterns, methods for handling MPD and implications of MPD on results. Our proposed guidance could help RCT authors to better report, and readers to better identify participants with missing data.

show abstract

An efficient strategy allowed English-speaking reviewers to identify foreign-language articles eligible for a systematic review

Cited by 17 publications

References 11 publications

Methods for conducting systematic reviews of risk factors in low- and middle-income countries

Methods for conducting systematic reviews of risk factors in low- and middle-income countries

Handling trial participants with missing outcome data when conducting a meta-analysis: a systematic survey of proposed approaches

Reporting missing participant data in randomised trials: systematic survey of the methodological literature and a proposed guide

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About