Searching for non-English literature may be unnecessary for German HTA Reports.

Q2 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
F1000Research Pub Date : 2025-07-07 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.12688/f1000research.151365.3
Elke Hausner, Sibylle Sturtz, Sandra Molnar, Lisa Schell, Wiebke Sieben, Stefan Sauerland
{"title":"Searching for non-English literature may be unnecessary for German HTA Reports.","authors":"Elke Hausner, Sibylle Sturtz, Sandra Molnar, Lisa Schell, Wiebke Sieben, Stefan Sauerland","doi":"10.12688/f1000research.151365.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health technology assessment (HTA) reports are based on comprehensive information retrieval. Current standards discourage the use of search restrictions, such as publication date and language. Given limited resources, it was unclear whether the effort invested in screening and translating studies published in languages other than English provided relevant additional information compared with the inclusion of English-language publications alone. We therefore analysed the impact of non-English publications on the conclusions of HTA reports produced by the German HTA agency, the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We determined whether non-English publications were included in all German HTA reports on non-drug interventions (published by IQWiG between 06/2007 to 08/2018) and on selected drug interventions. If at least one non-English publication was included, we assessed for each endpoint whether or not the exclusion of non-English publications changed the conclusion. If a non-English publication did not contain information relevant to the HTA report, we classified the publication as \"not relevant\".</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 70 HTA reports, 38 (54%) included 126 non-English publications. In 4 reports (6%) with 50 endpoints investigated in 39 PICO questions, the exclusion of a total of 10 non-English publications led to a change in the conclusions for 13 endpoints (8 PICO questions). This was largely due to the fact that in many cases, non-English publications were the predominant or only literature available, resulting in a lack of analysable data after their exclusion.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In general, studies only published in non-English languages have little influence on the conclusions of German HTA reports. For the vast majority of topics, a language restriction to English seems justified. Studies published in non-English languages may be useful in exceptional cases, for example when an intervention is only available in certain countries.</p>","PeriodicalId":12260,"journal":{"name":"F1000Research","volume":"13 ","pages":"1134"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12012429/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"F1000Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151365.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Health technology assessment (HTA) reports are based on comprehensive information retrieval. Current standards discourage the use of search restrictions, such as publication date and language. Given limited resources, it was unclear whether the effort invested in screening and translating studies published in languages other than English provided relevant additional information compared with the inclusion of English-language publications alone. We therefore analysed the impact of non-English publications on the conclusions of HTA reports produced by the German HTA agency, the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG).

Methods: We determined whether non-English publications were included in all German HTA reports on non-drug interventions (published by IQWiG between 06/2007 to 08/2018) and on selected drug interventions. If at least one non-English publication was included, we assessed for each endpoint whether or not the exclusion of non-English publications changed the conclusion. If a non-English publication did not contain information relevant to the HTA report, we classified the publication as "not relevant".

Results: Of 70 HTA reports, 38 (54%) included 126 non-English publications. In 4 reports (6%) with 50 endpoints investigated in 39 PICO questions, the exclusion of a total of 10 non-English publications led to a change in the conclusions for 13 endpoints (8 PICO questions). This was largely due to the fact that in many cases, non-English publications were the predominant or only literature available, resulting in a lack of analysable data after their exclusion.

Conclusions: In general, studies only published in non-English languages have little influence on the conclusions of German HTA reports. For the vast majority of topics, a language restriction to English seems justified. Studies published in non-English languages may be useful in exceptional cases, for example when an intervention is only available in certain countries.

德语HTA报告可能不需要搜索非英语文献。
背景:卫生技术评估(HTA)报告是基于综合信息检索的。当前的标准不鼓励使用搜索限制,例如出版日期和语言。由于资源有限,目前尚不清楚,与只纳入英语出版物相比,筛选和翻译以英语以外语言发表的研究是否提供了相关的额外信息。因此,我们分析了非英文出版物对德国HTA机构卫生保健质量和效率研究所(IQWiG)编制的HTA报告结论的影响。方法:我们确定所有德国HTA关于非药物干预措施的报告(由IQWiG于2007年6月至2018年8月发表)和选定药物干预措施的报告中是否包含非英文出版物。如果至少包括一篇非英语出版物,我们评估每个终点是否排除非英语出版物会改变结论。如果非英文出版物不包含与HTA报告相关的信息,我们将该出版物分类为“不相关”。结果:70篇HTA报告中,38篇(54%)包括126篇非英文出版物。在4篇报告(6%)中,对39个PICO问题的50个终点进行了调查,总共排除了10篇非英语出版物,导致13个终点(8个PICO问题)的结论发生了变化。这主要是由于在许多情况下,非英语出版物是主要的或唯一可用的文献,导致在排除它们之后缺乏可分析的数据。结论:一般来说,仅以非英语语言发表的研究对德语HTA报告的结论影响不大。对于绝大多数主题,语言限制为英语似乎是合理的。以非英语语言发表的研究在特殊情况下可能有用,例如只有在某些国家才有干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
F1000Research
F1000Research Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (all)
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1646
审稿时长
1 weeks
期刊介绍: F1000Research publishes articles and other research outputs reporting basic scientific, scholarly, translational and clinical research across the physical and life sciences, engineering, medicine, social sciences and humanities. F1000Research is a scholarly publication platform set up for the scientific, scholarly and medical research community; each article has at least one author who is a qualified researcher, scholar or clinician actively working in their speciality and who has made a key contribution to the article. Articles must be original (not duplications). All research is suitable irrespective of the perceived level of interest or novelty; we welcome confirmatory and negative results, as well as null studies. F1000Research publishes different type of research, including clinical trials, systematic reviews, software tools, method articles, and many others. Reviews and Opinion articles providing a balanced and comprehensive overview of the latest discoveries in a particular field, or presenting a personal perspective on recent developments, are also welcome. See the full list of article types we accept for more information.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信