Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
, 2013, 812179

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Traditional Chinese Medicine Must Search Chinese Databases to Reduce Language Bias

Affiliations
Review

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Traditional Chinese Medicine Must Search Chinese Databases to Reduce Language Bias

Xin-Yin Wu et al. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med.

Abstract

Systematic reviews (SRs) that fail to search non-English databases may miss relevant studies and cause selection bias. The bias may be particularly severe in SRs of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) as most randomized controlled trials (RCT) in TCM are published and accessible only in Chinese. In this study we investigated how often Chinese databases were not searched in SRs of TCM, how many trials were missed, and whether a bias may occur if Chinese databases were not searched. We searched 5 databases in English and 3 in Chinese for RCTs of Chinese herbal medicine for coronary artery disease and found that 96.64% (115/119) eligible studies could be identified only from Chinese databases. In a random sample of 80 Cochrane reviews on TCM, we found that Chinese databases were only searched in 43 or 53.75%, in which almost all the included studies were identified from Chinese databases. We also compared SRs of the same topic and found that they may draw a different conclusion if Chinese databases were not searched. In conclusion, an overwhelmingly high percentage of eligible trials on TCM could only be identified in Chinese databases. Reviewers in TCM are suggested to search Chinese databases to reduce potential selection bias.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of literature search and study selection for systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicine for treatment of coronary artery disease.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Meta-analysis of trials of traditional Chinese medicine for treatment of unstable angina to prevent reattack of angina, according to databases from which RCTs were identified.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Funnel plot of RCTs of traditional Chinese medicine for treatment of unstable angina according to databases from which the studies were identified (the solid dot represents the trial identified from international databases, and the black dots represent trials from Chinese databases).

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 13 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5. 1. 0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Edited by J. P. T. Higgins and S. Green.
    1. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. British Medical Journal. 1994;309(6964):1286–1291. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2007;7(1):p. 10. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Egger M, Zellweger-Zähner T, Schneider M, Junker C, Lengeler C, Antes G. Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German. The Lancet. 1997;350(9074):326–329. - PubMed
    1. Jüni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, Bartlett C, Egger M. Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2002;31(1):115–123. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback