ReviewJournal of registry management2012
Evaluation of primary/preferred language data collection.
Review in Journal of registry management, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Disparities in Adult Otolaryngology Patients with Limited English Proficiency: A Systematic Review.The Laryngoscope · 2025Pooled it
- Characterizing Identifiers for Immigrant Populations in Electronic Health Records.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2025Article
- Language-Concordant Health Care: Implementation of a Bilingual Competency Program.Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety · 2025Article
- The Translation and Adaptation of the Labour Force Survey Disability Module (LFS-DM) Into Hindi.Cureus · 2024Article
- Patient participation in clinical trials conducted by principal investigators who speak one or more language(s) beyond english: Exploring ethnicity as proxy for language.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2024Article
- Ascertaining the Francophone population in Ontario: validating the language variable in health data.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Variability in Collection and Use of Race/Ethnicity and Language Data in 93 Pediatric Hospitals.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A literature review was conducted to identify peer-reviewed articles related to primary/preferred language and interpreter-use data collection practices in hospitals, clinics, and outpatient settings to assess its completeness and quality. In January 2011, Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched for eligible studies. Primary and secondary inclusion criteria were applied to selected eligible articles. This extensive literature search yielded 768 articles after duplicates were removed. After primary and secondary inclusion criteria were applied, 28 eligible articles remained for data abstraction. All 28 articles in this review reported collecting primary/preferred language data, but only 18% (5/28) collected information on interpreter use. This review revealed that there remains variability in the way that primary/preferred language and interpreter use data are collected; all studies used various methodologies for evaluating and abstracting these data. Likewise, the sources from which the data were abstracted differed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23443456PMC4492301What OpenQuestion holds
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.