_(18306292659).jpg){kind=link}
- Published
- Updated
Clinical use of a device may be reported across several countries. Selecting only publications the team can readily read can change the balance of available information. Plan the language approach alongside source coverage and appraisal competence; language preference should not be recorded as scientific irrelevance.
Scope of the decision
Translation, eligibility screening and clinical interpretation can require different skills. Automated translation may support initial understanding, while important outcome or device details may need appropriate verification. If a restriction is used, state its reason, affected records and possible effect on interpretation.
Worked review
For example, a broad search identifies three potentially relevant papers in another language. The team flags language access separately instead of excluding them as irrelevant. Suitable translation and expert review find one concerns a different model and two concern the relevant population. Actual eligibility criteria then determine selection.
Practical checks
- Record language restrictions separately from scientific eligibility criteria.
- Verify accurate translation of important device and outcome descriptions.
- Assess how inaccessible language groups may affect the evidence conclusion.
Acceptance and limits
Acceptance requires an understandable rationale and explicit remaining limitations. Complete access in every language may not be feasible for every project, but the constraint should not be hidden. An English abstract alone does not establish adequate assessment of full methodological and outcome details.
Frequently asked questions
- Is automated translation sufficient by itself?
- That depends on use; important scientific meaning may need suitably competent verification.
- Does exclusion by language mean irrelevance?
- No. Keep it as a separate reason and assess its potential contribution to bias.