Language bias in orthodontic systematic reviews: A meta-epidemiological study

作者全名：Mheissen, Samer; Spineli, Loukia M.; Daraqel, Baraa; Alsafadi, Ahmad Saleem

作者地址：[Mheissen, Samer; Spineli, Loukia M.] Hannover Med Sch, Midwifery Res & Educ Unit, Hannover, Germany; [Daraqel, Baraa] Chongqing Med Univ, Dept Orthodont, Stomatol Hosp, Chongqing, Peoples R China; [Daraqel, Baraa] Al Quds Univ, Oral Hlth Res & Promot Unit, Jerusalem, Palestine

通信作者：Spineli, LM (通讯作者)，Hannover Med Sch, Midwifery Res & Educ Unit, Hannover, Germany.

来源：PLOS ONE

ESI学科分类：Multidisciplinary

WOS号：WOS:001198238500068

JCR分区：Q1

影响因子：2.9

年份：2024

卷号：19

期号：4

开始页：　

结束页：　

文献类型：Article

关键词：　

摘要：Background Orthodontic systematic reviews (SRs) include studies published mostly in English than non-English languages. Including only English studies in SRs may result in a language bias. This meta-epidemiological study aimed to evaluate the language bias impact on orthodontic SRs. Data source SRs published in high-impact orthodontic journals between 2017 and 2021 were retrieved through an electronic search of PubMed in June 2022. Additionally, Cochrane oral health group was searched for orthodontic systematic reviews published in the same period. Data collection and analysis Study selection and data extraction were performed by two authors. Multivariable logistic regression was implemented to explore the association of including non-English studies with the SRs characteristics. For the meta-epidemiological analysis, one meta-analysis from each SRs with at least three trials, including one non-English trial was extracted. The average difference in SMD was obtained using a random-effects meta-analysis. Results 174 SRs were included in this study. Almost one-quarter (n = 45/174, 26%) of these SRs included at least one non-English study. The association between SRs characteristics and including non-English studies was not statistically significant except for the restriction on language: the odds of including non-English studies reduced by 89% in SRs with a language restriction (OR: 0.11, 95%CI: 0.01 0.55, P< 0.01). Out of the sample, only fourteen meta-analyses were included in the meta-epidemiological analysis. The meta-epidemiological analysis revealed that non-English studies tended to overestimate the summary SMD by approximately 0.30, but this was not statistically significant when random-effects model was employed due to substantial statistical heterogeneity (Delta SMD = -0.29, 95%CI: -0.63 to 0.05, P = 0.37). As such, the overestimation of meta-analysis results by including non-English studies was statistically non-significant. Conclusion Language bias has non-negligible impact on the results of orthodontic SRs. Orthodontic systematic reviews should abstain from language restrictions and use sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of language on the conclusions, as non-English studies may have a lower quality.

基金机构：　

基金资助正文：