Lawson Margaret L, Pham Ba', Klassen Terry P, Moher David
Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Aug;58(8):777-84. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.08.022.
To compare the quality of systematic reviews reported in English and in languages other than English, and to determine whether there are differences between conventional medicine (CM) and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) reports.
We used the Oxman and Guyatt (OG) scale to assess the quality of reporting in 130 systematic reviews: 50 were language-restricted, 32 were language-inclusive but only English-language (EL) trials contained (inclusive-EL), and 48 were language-inclusive and included trials published in languages other than English (inclusive-LOE). Of the 130 reviews, 105 addressed CM interventions and 25 addressed CAM interventions.
Comparison of the systematic reviews showed that the quality of reporting and reporting characteristics are not affected by inclusion or exclusion of LOE; however, the quality of reporting of systematic reviews involving CAM interventions is higher than that of reviews focusing on CM interventions.
Informal comparison of the OG scale with the data collected on quality assessments showed that the OG scale performs well overall but may not identify important differences in comprehensiveness of the search strategy and avoidance of bias in study selection. Further research is required to determine the best methods for assessing quality of systematic reviews and whether the effect of language restrictions is dependent on the type of intervention (CM or CAM).
比较英文报告和非英文报告中系统评价的质量，并确定传统医学（CM）报告与补充和替代医学（CAM）报告之间是否存在差异。
我们使用奥克斯曼和盖亚特（OG）量表评估130篇系统评价的报告质量：50篇为语言限制型，32篇为语言包容性但仅包含英文试验（包容性英文），48篇为语言包容性且包含非英文发表的试验（包容性其他语言）。在这130篇综述中，105篇涉及CM干预，25篇涉及CAM干预。
系统评价的比较表明，报告质量和报告特征不受是否纳入其他语言试验的影响；然而，涉及CAM干预的系统评价的报告质量高于关注CM干预的综述。
OG量表与质量评估收集的数据进行的非正式比较表明，OG量表总体表现良好，但可能无法识别搜索策略全面性和研究选择中避免偏倚方面的重要差异。需要进一步研究以确定评估系统评价质量的最佳方法，以及语言限制的影响是否取决于干预类型（CM或CAM）。
Zotero 插件