Lost in Translation: A Multilingual Survey of Interlinguistic Variations in Terms Used in Pharmacovigilance

Introduction Although English is the universal language of science, it is nevertheless the first language of only about 6% of the world’s population, and 75% of people do not speak English at all. It is therefore important that accurate translations of scientific information should be available, not only for professionals but also for the general public. This applies to pharmacovigilance as much as to any other discipline. Objective The aim of this study was to determine how pharmacovigilance terms are translated into other languages, in order to judge the extent to which differences between languages might impair communication in pharmacovigilance. Methods I surveyed the translation of 26 pharmacovigilance terms into 26 languages via a panel of 83 pharmacovigilance experts. Results Three types of terms emerged: Type 1—those that are similar in form across all, or almost all, of the languages surveyed (e.g. ‘signal’ and ‘risk’); Type 2—terms that are similar in form across some languages but not all (e.g. ‘pharmacovigilance’ and ‘surveillance’); Type 3—terms for which there are major differences across languages (e.g. ‘hazard’). Conclusion Misconceptions in the communication of pharmacovigilance information may arise through difficulties in translation. Metaphorical expressions are best avoided in serious scientific publications, in order to reduce the difficulties of translation. A multilingual glossary of terms and definitions, which could be used to program a dedicated machine translator, would be of value. Published guidelines offer guidance to methods of translation, but they are complex and time-consuming and are mostly used in translating instruments for eliciting patient-reported outcomes.