@article{ebcec9ffeaae43a88f403f6b8b4366d0,
title = "Language Consideration and Methodological Transparency in “Systematic” Reviews of Animal Toxicity Studies",
abstract = "This study evaluated the use of non-English literature (NEL) in systematic reviews (SRs) or meta-analyses (MAs) of animal-based toxicity or communicable disease (CD) studies. A secondary goal was to assess how grant funding, country of primary authorship, or study quality reporting influenced the use of NEL in these reviews. Inclusion criteria and data extraction forms were based on a pilot evaluation of a 10% random sample of reviews that were identified from a PubMed search (2006 to May 2017). This search yielded 111 animal toxicity and 69 CD reviews. Reviews (33 animal toxicity and 32 CD studies) were included when the authors identified their work as an SR or MA, described a literature search strategy, and provided defined inclusion criteria. Extracted data included PubMed indexing of publication type, author affiliations, and grant funding. Language use was mentioned in the methods in 55% of the toxicity SRs and 69% of CD SRs, of which 44% (n = 8) and 41% (n = 9) were limited to English, respectively. Neither the study type, grant funding, nor first author country of affiliation was associated with an increased consideration of NEL. Study quality reporting was more common in SRs that considered multiple languages. Despite guidelines that encourage the use of NEL in SRs and translation tools, SR/MA authors often fail to report language inclusion or focus on English publications. Librarian involvement in SR can promote awareness of relevant NEL and collaborative and technological strategies to improve their incorporation into the SR process.",
keywords = "authorship, foreign languages, publications, systematic review methodology, toxicology, translation",
author = "Alpi, {Kristine M.} and Vo, {Tram A.} and Dorman, {David C.}",
note = "Funding Information: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: No external grant funding supported this research, which the authors completed using resources available through their affiliation with North Carolina State University. Funding Information: Identifying other factors that may influence an investigator{\textquoteright}s decision to include NEL was an additional goal of the present project. For example, we considered whether the presence or absence of grant funding influenced the use of NEL in SRs. This factor was considered important since the time and cost of acquiring and translating articles has been cited as an important obstacle to the inclusion of NEL in SRs.28 We relied on the Research Support Publication Types in PubMed to identify whether a particular study received grant funding. This provides research grant numbers, contract numbers, or both that designate financial support by US federal health agencies or other US and non-US funding organizations.24 Our assumption was that grant funding may provide financial support that could increase the use of translation services and other approaches that could facilitate the increased use of NEL in SRs. In addition, National Institutes of Health intramural researchers have access to limited no-cost services for the translation of French, German, Spanish, and Russian literature to English, which could also influence the use of NEL in SRs.29 Likewise, we presumed that increased use of NEL may occur when the first author was affiliated with an institution that was located in a nation where English was not the primary language. We were surprised that our analysis showed that neither grant funding nor the country of origin of the first author was associated with an increased use of NEL in published animal toxicity and CD SRs. Moreover, we found no significant association between reporting that the authors considered publication bias and language use in our pooled sample of SRs. An important limitation of our study is that a large proportion (39%) of the published SRs/MAs evaluated in the present study were silent on whether the authors considered NEL or nonnative language literature. This is an improvement from the Moher et al{\textquoteright}s finding published in 2000 that 69% of the MAs were not explicit about language.15 Of those MAs, 46% were funded studies. The rate of evaluating publication bias in our study was also higher than the 19% Moher et al15 reported. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} The Author(s) 2019.",
year = "2019",
month = mar,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1091581819827232",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "135--145",
journal = "International Journal of Toxicology",
issn = "1091-5818",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "2",
}