ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Beyond Words: A Call to Action for Language Inclusivity in Prospective Research.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the USA, individuals who prefer to speak, read, or write non-English languages at home, i.e., non-English language preference (NELP) individuals, have nearly tripled over four decades, yet < 3% of clinical trials offer translation, and ~ 19% require English proficiency. Exclusion of communities with NELP limits generalizability by reducing sample representativeness and missing language-related effect modifiers, decreases patient-centered care and outcomes, and deepens healthcare inequities and mistrust. NELP is associated with worse clinical outcomes independent of race and ethnicity, suggesting unique barriers impacting research validity and effectiveness. Identifying such barriers and interventions to participation in prospective research among communities with NELP is therefore critical. Barriers span the research lifecycle: from limited funding, translated study materials, and research team communication during the planning phase to under-reporting language in dissemination. Interventions also span the research lifecycle, empowering all key players, from study teams to policymakers, including institutions and funding agencies that support standardized education and infrastructure. This includes better capturing language preferences in electronic health records, mandating language reporting through study milestones and publication, and increasing funding mechanisms for language-inclusive research. Despite significant barriers, the scientific community has the responsibility and power to improve language inclusivity, representativeness, and generalizability of prospective research.
Identifiers
42527838What 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.