Skip to main content

Table 4 Author and systematic review characteristics

From: The prevalence of and factors associated with inclusion of non-English language studies in Campbell systematic reviews: a survey and meta-epidemiological study

Variables

LOE-restricted reviews (n = 15)

LOE-open reviews (n = 84)

LOE-inclusive reviews (n = 17)

Author characteristics

 

 Number of authors

 

  Mean (SD)

4.2 (1.2)

4.6 (2.6)

4.9 (2.1)

  Median

4

4

5

 Number of institutions represented by authorsa

 

  Mean (SD)

2.3 (1.0)

2.4 (1.6)

2.8 (1.9)

  Median

2

2

3

 Number of different working countries represented by authorsa

 

  Mean (SD)

1.3 (0.6)

1.3 (0.7)

1.8 (1.3)

  Median

1

1

1

Questionnaire variables

(n = 6)

(n=30b)

(n=9b)

 Authors’ languages

 

  Mean (SD)

1.3 (0.5)

3.2 (2.2)

4.2 (2.5)

  Median

1

2

4

 Authors’ nationalities

 

  Mean (SD)

2.0 (0.9)

2.1 (2.2)

2.7 (1.2)

  Median

2

2

2

Methodological inclusion criteria

 

 RCTs (%)

8 (53.3)

31 (36.9)

4 (23.5)

 Quasi-experiments (%)

3 (20.0)

48 (57.1)

12 (70.6)

 Non-experiments (%)

3 (20.0)

5 (6.0)

1 (5.9)

 Unclear (%)

1 (6.7)

0 (0.0)

0 (0.0)

Scope of search strategy

 

 Languages of search terms

 

  Mean (SD)

1 (0.0)

1.3 (1.1)

1.4 (1.5)

  Median

1

1

1

 Databases, registers and journals searched in

 

  Mean (SD)

34.6 (36.8)

25.3 (23.0)

34.4 (22.0)

  Median

26.0

21.5

26.0

 Experts contacted

 

  Yes (%)

9 (60.0)

63 (75.0)

14 (82.4)

  No (%)

6 (40.0)

21 (25.0)

3 (17.6)

  1. The seven LOE-undefined reviews are not included in the regression analyses. The total number of reviews included in the analysis is thus 116
  2. aIn 35 reviews, one or more author institutions were not reported accounting for 18.4% of the total 570 authors
  3. bTwo respondents did not give complete answers about the nationalities and languages of their review team; thus, there was one missing value for LOE-open and one for LOE-restricted
  4. N/A Not Applicable, i.e. no methodological inclusion criteria were unclear