ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2025
Language inclusion intentions in scoping reviews.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evidence for Electrocardiographic Patterns Identifying Acute Coronary Occlusion in Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Scoping Review.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Research published in languages other than English (LOTE) is often ignored in evidence syntheses, marginalising diverse knowledge and global perspectives. While the extent of LOTE inclusion and the associated attitudes of LOTE inclusion amongst authors of systematic reviews has been well characterised, LOTE inclusion in other evidence synthesis forms has yet to be explored. Scoping reviews, in comparison to systematic reviews, examine a broader range of sources to build a conceptual summary of a field of inquiry, making LOTE literature an important source of information for scoping review authors. This study therefore aimed to characterise the current state of LOTE inclusion intentions in scoping reviews. Methods: Peer-reviewed, PubMed indexed scoping review protocols published from 01-Jan-2024 to 11-Aug-2024 were analysed for LOTE inclusion. Author affiliation, which LOTEs (if any) were included, and what methods authors planned to use to read LOTE literature were recorded. Results: Overall, LOTE inclusion intentions and attitudes were diverse, with just under half of the 249 protocols analysed including a LOTE. Many LOTE-included articles relied on the authorship team's own LOTE proficiency to gather evidence. Machine translation was also intended to be used in one quarter of the LOTE-included protocols. Only 30% of the exclusive protocols planned to exclude LOTEs at the screening stage, allowing for readers to identify the number of LOTE articles. Conclusion: This analysis demonstrates the need for increased LOTE inclusion and reporting guidelines for scoping reviews, as well as the importance of analysing LOTE inclusion for other forms of evidence synthesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.