OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare effectiveness of different options for de-duplicating records retrieved from systematic review searches. METHODS: Using the records from a published systematic review, five de-duplication options were compared. The time taken to de-duplicate in each option and the number of false positives (were deleted but should not have been) and false negatives (should have been deleted but were not) were recorded. RESULTS: The time for each option varied. The number of positive and false duplicates returned from each option also varied greatly. CONCLUSION: The authors recommend different de-duplication options based on the skill level of the searcher and the purpose of de-duplication efforts.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare effectiveness of different options for de-duplicating records retrieved from systematic review searches. METHODS: Using the records from a published systematic review, five de-duplication options were compared. The time taken to de-duplicate in each option and the number of false positives (were deleted but should not have been) and false negatives (should have been deleted but were not) were recorded. RESULTS: The time for each option varied. The number of positive and false duplicates returned from each option also varied greatly. CONCLUSION: The authors recommend different de-duplication options based on the skill level of the searcher and the purpose of de-duplication efforts.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biomedical Research; Standards, Duplicate Publication as Topic, Publications; Standards, Review Literature as Topic
Authors: Irma Convertino; Stefano Salvadori; Alessandro Pecori; Maria Teresa Galiulo; Sara Ferraro; Maria Parrilli; Tiberio Corona; Giuseppe Turchetti; Corrado Blandizzi; Marco Tuccori Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Melissa L Rethlefsen; Shona Kirtley; Siw Waffenschmidt; Ana Patricia Ayala; David Moher; Matthew J Page; Jonathan B Koffel Journal: J Med Libr Assoc Date: 2021-04-01