Titre :
|
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials : empirical study. Commentary. (2002)
|
Auteurs :
|
Peter JUNI ;
Christopher BARTLETT ;
Mike CLARKE ;
George DAVEY SMITH, préf. ;
Shah EBRAHIM, préf. ;
Matthias EGGER ;
Matthias EGGER, préf. ;
Franziska HOLENSTEIN ;
Jonathan STERNE ;
Medical Research Council Health Services Research Collaboration. Department of Social Medicine. University of Bristol. GBR
|
Type de document :
|
Article
|
Dans :
|
International journal of epidemiology (vol. 31, n° 1, 2002)
|
Pagination :
|
115-124
|
Langues:
|
Anglais
|
Mots-clés :
|
Biais
;
Méthodologie
;
Evaluation
;
Homme
;
Epidémiologie
;
Royaume Uni
;
Europe
|
Résumé :
|
[BDSP. Notice produite par INIST-CNRS R6fZ4R0x. Diffusion soumise à autorisation]. Background Excluding clinical trials reported in languages other than English from meta-analyses may introduce bias and reduce the precision of combined estimates of treatment effects. We examined the influence of trials published in languages other than English on combined estimates and conclusions of published meta-analyses. Methods We searched journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for meta-analyses of at least five trials with binary outcomes that were based on comprehensive literature searches without language restrictions. We compared estimates of treatment effects from trials published in languages other than English to those from trials published in English, and assessed the impact of restricting meta-analyses to trials published in English. Results We identified 303 meta-analyses : 159 (52.4%) employed comprehensive literature searches of which 50 included 485 English and 115 non-English language trials. Non-English language trials included fewer participants (median 88 versus 116, P=0.006) and were more likely to produce significant results at P
|