Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare effectiveness of different options for de-duplicating records retrieved from systematic review searches. 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. The time for each option varied. The number of positive and false duplicates returned from each option also varied greatly. The authors recommend different de-duplication options based on the skill level of the searcher and the purpose of de-duplication efforts.
Highlights
Systematic reviews continue to gain prevalence in health care primarily because they summarize and appraise vast amounts of evidence for busy health care providers [1, 2]
The authors recommend different de-duplication options based on the skill level of the searcher and the purpose of de-duplication efforts
Because they are used as the foundation for clinical and policy-related decisionmaking processes, it is critical to ensure that the methods used in systematic reviews are explicit and valid
Summary
Systematic reviews continue to gain prevalence in health care primarily because they summarize and appraise vast amounts of evidence for busy health care providers [1, 2]. As Kassirer and Angell argued, ‘‘multiple reports of the same observations can over emphasize the importance of the findings, overburden busy reviewers, fill the medical literature with inconsequential material, and distort the academic reward system’’ [5]. Removing these duplicate citations, known as de-duplication, can be a time-consuming process but is necessary to ensure a valid and reliable pool of studies for inclusion in a systematic review
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
