The Accuracy of Google Translate for Abstracting Data From NonEnglish-Language Trials for Systematic Reviews

@article{Jackson2019TheAO,
  title={The Accuracy of Google Translate for Abstracting Data From NonEnglish-Language Trials for Systematic Reviews},
  author={Jeffrey Jackson and A. Kuriyama and Andreea Anton and April Choi and J. Fournier and Anne-Kathrin Geier and F. Jacquerioz and Dmitry Kogan and Cecilia Scholcoff and R. Sun},
  journal={Annals of Internal Medicine},
  year={2019},
  volume={171},
  pages={677-679}
}
Background: A critical marker of high-quality systematic reviews is the identification and inclusion of all relevant, important studies. Up to 78% of systematic reviews have language restrictions; as a consequence, most reviews (93%) exclude at least 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) (1). A 2012 study assessing Google Translate for translating nonEnglish-language studies recommended caution in using this service (2). Recently, Google updated its translation engine, reporting that it is… Expand
29 Citations
What is the Prevalence of Low Health Literacy in European Union Member States? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
  • PDF
Rate of Preventable Mortality in Hospitalized Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
  • 4
  • PDF
...
1
2
3
...

References

SHOWING 1-6 OF 6 REFERENCES
Accuracy of Data Extraction of Non-English Language Trials with Google Translate
  • 36
  • PDF
How Often Do Systematic Reviews Exclude Articles Not Published in English?
  • 7
  • Highly Influential
  • PDF
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?
  • 14,333
  • PDF
The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
  • 13,140
  • PDF
Google Translate is getting really, really accurate. Washington Post. 3 October 2016
  • Accessed at www.washingtonpost.com/news /innovations/wp/2016/10/03/google-translate-is-getting-really-really-accurate /?utm_term=.4eb5991f4cfc on
  • 2019
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
  • 1,529