Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17362215›Full record

SynthesisHealth services research2007

Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited English proficiency? A systematic review of the literature.

Leah S Karliner, Elizabeth A Jacobs, Alice Hm Chen, Sunita Mutha

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health services research, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03149276 (Limited English Proficiency Occupational Therapy Patients Receiving Interpreter Services Perception of Quality of Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 620 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
620citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03149276 completednot on this mapstarted 2015, after this paper: background citation

Limited English Proficiency Occupational Therapy Patients Receiving Interpreter Services Perception of Quality of Care

TypeobservationalSponsorRush University Medical CenterRan2015 to 2015Enrolled8ConditionsCommunication Barriers, Occupational TherapyArmsInterpreter services
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

620 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Prevalence of Professional Interpreter Use in Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Implementing and Delivering Culturally Centred Pharmacy Services Tailored to Ethnically Minoritised Populations: A Qualitative Systematic Review and Meta-Ethnography.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

560 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Leah S KarlinerDivision of General Internal Medicine, Medical Effectiveness Research Center for Diverse Populations, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 1701 Divisadero, Suite 500, San Franicsco, CA 94143-1732, USA.
Elizabeth A Jacobs
Alice Hm Chen
Sunita Mutha

Funding

PHS HHS 1 D14 HP 00178-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine if professional medical interpreters have a positive impact on clinical care for limited English proficiency (LEP) patients. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search, limited to the English language, in PubMed and PsycINFO for publications between 1966 and September 2005, and a search of the Cochrane Library. STUDY

designAny peer-reviewed article which compared at least two language groups, and contained data about professional medical interpreters and addressed communication (errors and comprehension), utilization, clinical outcomes, or satisfaction were included. Of 3,698 references, 28 were found by multiple reviewers to meet inclusion criteria and, of these, 21 assessed professional interpreters separately from ad hoc interpreters. Data were abstracted from each article by two reviewers. Data were collected on the study design, size, comparison groups, analytic technique, interpreter training, and method of determining the participants' need for an interpreter. Each study was evaluated for the effect of interpreter use on four clinical topics that were most likely to either impact or reflect disparities in health and health care. PRINCIPAL

findingsIn all four areas examined, use of professional interpreters is associated with improved clinical care more than is use of ad hoc interpreters, and professional interpreters appear to raise the quality of clinical care for LEP patients to approach or equal that for patients without language barriers.

conclusionsPublished studies report positive benefits of professional interpreters on communication (errors and comprehension), utilization, clinical outcomes and satisfaction with care.

Indexed as

Communication BarriersLanguagePhysician-Patient RelationsTranslatingHealth ServicesHealth Services AccessibilityHealth Services ResearchHumansPatient SatisfactionQuality of Health CareTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID17362215
PMCPMC1955368

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.