The length of time required to translate articles ranged from 5 minutes to about 1 hour for almost all articles, with an average of about 30 minutes.

The model used each extractor's accuracy in extracting the English language trials to control for reviewer effects. We used a generalized linear mixed model to examine whether the probability of correctly extracting an item from a translated article is related to the language of original publication. Data extracted included: eligibility criteria, study design features, outcomes reported, intervention and outcome descriptions, and results data for one continuous and/or one categorical outcome. These 8 researchers also each extracted 10 English-language trials to serve as a control. Each English-translated article was extracted by two of eight researchers who did not speak the given language. The original language versions of the articles were double data extracted by fluent speakers and reconciled. The time required to translate each study was tracked. Each article was translated into English using Google Translate. Eligible studies were trials that reported per-treatment group results data. We included 10 randomized controlled trials in 5 languages (Chinese, French, German, Japanese, and Spanish). To address several limitations of the pilot study, four collaborating Evidence-based Practice Centers conducted a more rigorous analysis of translations of articles from five languages. An earlier pilot study provided some evidence that data extraction from translated articles may be adequate but varies by language. However, it is unclear whether its translation accuracy is sufficient for systematic reviews. Google Translate, a free Web-based resource for translation, has recently become available. However, study eligibility is often restricted to the English language for practical reasons. One of the strengths of systematic reviews is that they aim to include all relevant evidence.

Translate into