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

摘要: Abstract Summary Background Lately, the number of systematic reviews published has increased substantially. Many exclude trials in languages other than English. However, there is little empirical evidence to support this action. We looked for differences completeness reporting between and those English, see whether exclusion justified. Methods compared reporting, design characteristics, analytical approaches 133 randomised controlled (RCTs) English 1989 1994 96 French, German, Italian, or Spanish during same time. RCTs were identified by hand searching journals (seven six languages). Findings found no significant other-language any single item scale (randomisation, double-blinding, withdrawals), overall score (percentage maximum possible 51·0% 46·2% languages; 95% Cl difference -1·1 10·5). Other-language more likely English-language have adult participants, use two interventions, compare active treatments without an untreated control group. Trials less report a clearly prespecified primary outcome rationale sample size estimation. Interpretation These results provide inclusion all trial reports, irrespective language which they are published, reviews. Their increase precision may reduce errors. hope that our findings will prove useful developing guidelines policies conduct