Limiting to English language records: A comparison of five methods on Ovid MEDLINE and Embase versus removal during screening
Fulbright, H. A.; Morrison, K.
Show abstract
Background: For evidence syntheses using English language limits, several different methods and approaches are available. Objective: To understand the English language (EL) limits available on Ovid MEDLINE and Embase and the application of language metadata on these databases. To compare the impact of five EL limits versus removing non-English language (NEL) records during screening. Methods: Using the records included at full text screening or excluded on NEL status during screening in seven evidence syntheses, we tested five EL limits on 1,509 MEDLINE and 1,584 Embase records. 'Includes' removed or 'NEL excludes' retrieved were investigated. Results: All EL limits performed identically, 99.8% of MEDLINE 'includes' were retrieved versus 99.7% on Embase. All five 'includes' incorrectly removed with EL limits had language metadata errors. Although 98.2% MEDLINE and 94.6% Embase 'NEL excludes' were removed with EL limits, eight MEDLINE and nine Embase records were available in English. Discussion: The risk of excluding potentially eligible records due to language restrictions (whether applied during the strategies or screening) could be mitigated with forward and backward citation searching. Conclusion: EL limits risk removing records with incorrect language metadata. However, EL records might also be excluded on language during screening.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Investigating the Nature of Open Science Practices Across Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Journals: An Audit 96%
- Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors 95%
- Modelling the impact of behavioural interventions during pandemics: A systematic review 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 95%
- Agreeability testing of AMSTAR-PF, a tool for quality appraisal of systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies 95%
- Reporting of Retrospective Registration in Clinical Trial Publications 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 96%
- Large language models for conducting systematic reviews: on the rise, but not yet ready for use – a scoping review 95%
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of the sensitivity, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production 96%
- Catchii: empowering literature review screening in healthcare 96%
- Development of the Individual Participant Data (IPD) Integrity Tool for assessing the integrity of randomised trials using individual participant data 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Creating an Indexing Scheme for Case Series Articles 95%
- Does pre-notification increase questionnaire response rates: a nested randomised control trial 95%
- Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials – Visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT) 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.