Language restrictions on systematic literature review: reflect the current tone

Systematic Review Analyst Department written by Alys Ridsdale

introduction

There are more than 7,100 languages ​​around the world (1). Despite these linguistic diversity, it is a general practice, including the language limitations of systematic literature review (SLR) (2). The main goal of the SLR is to identify all the information related to the research question in an unbiased manner (3). Therefore, COCHRANE COLLABORATION recommended SLR includes legitimate language studies necessary for limiting English publications (4). However, the search strategy and qualification criteria are often limited to SLRs by studies published in English (2). This raises concerns about limiting SLR to English publications due to the potential of language prejudice, which can affect SLR discovery (2, 4, 5). For this reason, the use of language limitations appears to be semi -intuitive and can question the possibility of acceptance (2, 5).

How can you justify language restrictions?

SLRs frequently reported to include language studies that are not English (5):

• • There is not enough funds
  • Time shortage
  • It is difficult to find publications, not English.
  • Reviewer’s article translation and interpretation
  • Account and cost of professional translators.

This logistics problem, which searches and evaluates language studies other than English, emphasizes some of the practical and monetary considerations when developing SLR strategies. The issue of publishing interpretation can also be a factor in concern (2). However, as English becomes a central scientific language, if you form a written voice of up to 98%of the scientific publications, including English research in the SLR, you can capture and summarize most of the data available to the reviewer in a timely manner.

The meaning of SLR language restriction

Evidence of whether language limitations increases the risk of language prejudice within SLRs (8). Egger et al, 1997 found that the author of German is more likely to be published in English if the result is statistically significant (9). This change of publication language based on the findings (called language bias) can be caused by looking down on important studies, but SLRs are not important (2, 4, 5). In contrast, the NussBaumer-Strreit et al, 2020 showed that one of the 40 randomly selected cocclane reviews, except for publications, was not significantly changed (10). Thus, language limitations reduce the results of the results, but the SLR conclusion may not always be affected (11). There is a balance between the additional insights that non -English studies can get the cost of discovery and translation (12). This is also likely to depend on the display and scope of the review (2). Therefore, the decision that excludes or includes language studies, not English, should be considered independently of each SLR.

If language restrictions are justified, COCHRANE and other collaboration focus on limiting the degree of practical and clear reporting (2). For example, SLRs can set protocols including international test registers and database searches that can have an English translation (2).

Potential change of translation toolkit

The translation technologies such as Google Translation and DEEPL are continuously improved, allowing you to screen and evaluate publications of various languages ​​and dialects (13). The use of artificial intelligence (AI) can also allow high quality inexpensive translations in the future that is not far away (1). However, these technologies do not have errors and the usefulness of scientific communication is unclear (2, 14). In the context that can lead to a significant difference in the conclusion of a small translation error, these tools may not present a reasonable option to evaluate the full text of the publication (2). Nevertheless, they can be useful for selecting data sources, not English, and providing the future path for efficient and inexpensive translations (2).

conclusion

In many SLRs, language restrictions represent executable options that manage contrast priorities of resources and knowledge (2). Implementing language restrictions with clear justification can minimize translation and data analysis problems and promote them with efficient and effective practices (6, 8).

However, always utilized technologies and improved global communication can take this scale. Continuous review of language restrictions and clear reporting increases the transparency and quality of future SLRs.

To learn more about the systematic literature review, contact Source Health Economics, a Heor consulting that specializes in creating evidence, health economy and communication.

reference

1. Bahji A. Northern European alcohol NARC. 2023; 40 (1): 6-13.
2. Stern C. JBI Evidence. 2020; 18 (9): 1818-9.
3. Thomas C. Available: (Last approach to July 1, 2024). 2024.
4. Cokrain collaboration. Can be used: (The last approach on July 31, 2024). 2023.
5. Neimann Rasmussen L. Syst Rev. 2018; 7 (1): 129.
6. Ramírez-Coastañeda V. Plos One. 2020; 15 (9): E0238372.
7. Steigerwald E. Bioscience. 2022; 72 (10): 988-98.
8. Helbach J. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2022; 22 (1): 230.
9. Egger M. 1997; 350 (9074): 326-9.
10. Nussbaumer dispute B. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020; 118: 42-54.
11. De KOCK S. has been announced as part of the 2020 annual science council in COCHRANE. Can be used: https://abstracts.cochrane.org/2020- Abstracts/potential-Mipact-swise-mits-Systematic- Reviews. 2020.
12. Walpole sc. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 111: 127-34.
13. Mahmić-Kaknjo M. Syst Rev. 2023; 12 (1): 56.
14. AIKEN M. Language and Literature Research. 2019; 3: p253.