Better duplicate detection for systematic reviewers: evaluation of systematic review assistamt-Deduplication module
نویسندگان
چکیده
Background: A major problem arising from searching across bibliographic databases is the retrieval of duplicate citations. Removing such duplicates is an essential task to ensure systematic reviewers do not waste time screening the same citation multiple times. Although reference management software use algorithms to remove duplicate records, this is only partially successful and necessitates removing the remaining duplicates manually. This time-consuming task leads to wasted resources. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of a newly developed deduplication program against EndNote. Methods: A literature search of 1,988 citations was manually inspected and duplicate citations identified and coded to create a benchmark dataset. 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’). The accuracy of deduplication was reported by calculating the sensitivity and specificity. 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. Results: The sensitivity (84%) and specificity (100%) of the SRA-DM was superior to EndNote (sensitivity 51%, specificity 99.83%). 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%). 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. Overall, there was a 42.86% increase in the number of duplicates records detected with SRA-DM compared with EndNote auto-deduplication. Conclusions: The Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module offers users a reliable program to remove duplicate records with greater sensitivity and specificity than EndNote. This application will save researchers and information specialists time and avoid research waste. The deduplication program is freely available online.
منابع مشابه
Better duplicate detection for systematic reviewers: evaluation of Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module
BACKGROUND A major problem arising from searching across bibliographic databases is the retrieval of duplicate citations. Removing such duplicates is an essential task to ensure systematic reviewers do not waste time screening the same citation multiple times. Although reference management software use algorithms to remove duplicate records, this is only partially successful and necessitates re...
متن کاملEvaluation of antioxidant-oxidant status of saliva in recurrent aphthous stomatitis: A systematic review
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Recurrent Aphthous Stomatitis (RAS) as a common oral lesion can be related to oxidative stress. The aim of this study was to review the antioxidant-oxidant status of saliva in patients with RAS.METHODS: In this review study, all English and Persian articles were searched by relevant keywords from the PubMed, science direct, Cochrane, Scopus and Sid databases from 1995 ...
متن کاملAutomatizing the Assignment of the Submitted Manuscripts to Reviewers: A Systematic Review of Research Texts
Purpose: To systematicly review the automatazation of the assignment of the submitted manuscripts to reviewers in order to identify the status of research studies in this field in terms of types of evidence of expertise, types of retrieval models used, and the research gaps, and finally some suggestions for has been offered for future research. Method: The current research followed the systema...
متن کاملA systematic review of gold nanoparticles as novel cancer therapeutics
Objective(s):The current systematic study has reviewed the therapeutic potential of gold nanoparticles as nano radiosensitizers for cancer radiation therapy. Materials and Methods: This study was done to review nano radiosensitizers. PubMed, Ovid Medline, Science Direct, SCOPUS, ISI web of knowledge, Springer databases were searched from 2000 to September 2013 to identify appropriate studies....
متن کاملClinical decision making in Iranian nurses: systematic review
Introduction: Clinical decision making is one of the most important processes which nurses always use to care for patients. Appropriate decisions help to improve the quality of care, reduce the duration of illness and disability, reduce costs and make optimal use of resources. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to review studies conducted in the field of clinical decision making of Ira...
متن کامل