Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: Implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews

被引:398
作者
Moher, D
Fortin, P
Jadad, AR
Juni, P
Klassen, T
LeLorier, J
Liberati, A
Linde, K
Penna, A
机构
[1] UNIV OTTAWA,DEPT MED,OTTAWA,ON K1Y 4E9,CANADA
[2] MCGILL UNIV,DIV RHEUMATOL,DEPT MED,MONTREAL GEN HOSP RES INST,MONTREAL,PQ H3A 2T5,CANADA
[3] MCGILL UNIV,DIV CLIN EPIDEMIOL,DEPT MED,MONTREAL GEN HOSP RES INST,MONTREAL,PQ H3A 2T5,CANADA
[4] MCMASTER UNIV,DEPT CLIN EPIDEMIOL & BIOSTAT,HAMILTON,ON,CANADA
[5] CLIN EPIDEMIOL STUDY GRP,OLTEN,SWITZERLAND
[6] UNIV MANITOBA,DEPT PEDIAT,WINNIPEG,MB R3T 2N2,CANADA
[7] UNIV MANITOBA,DEPT COMMUNITY HLTH SCI,WINNIPEG,MB R3T 2N2,CANADA
[8] UNIV MONTREAL,DEPT MED & PHARMACOL,MONTREAL,PQ,CANADA
[9] MARIO NEGRI INST PHARMACOL RES,LAB CLIN EPIDEMIOL,MILAN,ITALY
[10] UNIV MUNICH,MUNCHENER MODELL,D-81377 MUNICH,GERMANY
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0140-6736(96)90538-3
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
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% CI 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 prespecified primary outcome or any rationale for sample size estimation. Interpretation These results provide evidence for inclusion of all trial reports, irrespective of the language in which they are published, in systematic reviews, Their inclusion is likely to increase precision and may reduce systematic errors. We hope that our findings will prove useful to those developing guidelines and policies for the conduct of reporting of systematic reviews.
引用
收藏
页码:363 / 366
页数:4
相关论文
共 21 条