11/28/2023 0 Comments Do not duplicate meaningHowever, the methodological details of trials are often inadequately described by authors in the titles or abstracts, and not all records contain an abstract. The biomedical databases MEDLINE and EMBASE contain over 41 million records, and about one million records are added annually to EMBASE (which now also includes MEDLINE records) and 700,000 to MEDLINE. Identifying trials for systematic reviews is time consuming: the average retrieval from a PubMed search produces 17,284 citations. The deduplication program is freely available online. This application will save researchers and information specialists time and avoid research waste. The Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module offers users a reliable program to remove duplicate records with greater sensitivity and specificity than EndNote. Overall, there was a 42.86% increase in the number of duplicates records detected with SRA-DM compared with EndNote auto-deduplication. Furthermore, the specificity of SRA-DM was 100%, whereas the specificity of EndNote was imperfect (average 99.75%) with some unique records wrongly assigned as duplicates. Validation testing on three additional biomedical literature searches demonstrated that SRA-DM consistently achieved higher sensitivity than EndNote (90% vs 63%), (84% vs 73%) and (84% vs 64%). The sensitivity (84%) and specificity (100%) of the SRA-DM was superior to EndNote (sensitivity 51%, specificity 99.83%). Further validation tests, with three additional benchmarked literature searches comprising a total of 4,563 citations were performed to determine the reliability of the SRA-DM algorithm. The accuracy of deduplication was reported by calculating the sensitivity and specificity. The Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module (SRA-DM) was iteratively developed and tested using the benchmark dataset and compared with EndNote’s default one step auto-deduplication process matching on (‘author’, ‘year’, ‘title’). MethodsĪ literature search of 1,988 citations was manually inspected and duplicate citations identified and coded to create a benchmark dataset. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of a newly developed deduplication program against EndNote. This time-consuming task leads to wasted resources. Although reference management software use algorithms to remove duplicate records, this is only partially successful and necessitates removing the remaining duplicates manually. Removing such duplicates is an essential task to ensure systematic reviewers do not waste time screening the same citation multiple times. A major problem arising from searching across bibliographic databases is the retrieval of duplicate citations.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |