["Area, EarlyView. ", "\nShort Abstract\nThis paper compares two systematic literature reviews—one in English and one in Vietnamese—to examine how language shapes the production and framing of knowledge on climate change and health. It highlights significant differences in methods, assumptions and policy framings, and argues that linguistic boundaries are not just technical barriers but epistemological filters with real implications for global evidence synthesis.\n\nABSTRACT\nThe dominance of English‐language scholarship in global research has led to a significant knowledge divide, often marginalising research from non‐English‐speaking regions, particularly in the Global South. This paper presents a comparative analysis of two systematic literature reviews (SLRs) on the health impacts of climate change on outdoor workers in urban Asia, focusing on English‐ and Vietnamese‐language literature. By comparing these two bodies of scholarship, the study uncovers key thematic convergences and divergences, reflecting broader disparities in knowledge production, research norms and priorities. The English‐language literature emphasises macro‐level analyses, theoretical frameworks, and long‐term policy interventions, while the Vietnamese‐language literature offers more localised, context‐specific insights, highlighting immediate coping strategies and health risks faced by outdoor workers. We argue that the systematic exclusion of non‐English sources risks reinforcing existing epistemic hierarchies, narrowing debate on global health and climate change research. By integrating Southern‐language perspectives, research can better and more equitably address the diverse vulnerabilities of outdoor workers and develop more effective and locally attuned interventions. The study emphasises the need to cast our linguistic net more widely to enrich global understanding and help achieve epistemic justice.\n"]