Considerations for conducting systematic reviews: evaluating the performance of different methods for de-duplicating references

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2021, Pages

  McKeown, Sandra ^a   Mir, Zuhaib M ^a  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bibliographic databases; De duplication; Duplicate references; Reference management software; Study design; Synthesis methods; Systematic review software; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COCHRANE LIBRARY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); CONTROLLED STUDY; EMBASE; HUMAN; MEDLINE; PSYCINFO; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SOFTWARE; SYNTHESIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TOPICAL DRUG ADMINISTRATION; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL;

DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; MEDLINE;

EID: 85099883226     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-021-01583-y     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. Plos Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028
2. Ioannidis JPA. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485–514. DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.12210
3. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane, 2020. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
4. Woods D, Trewheellar K. Medline and Embase complement each other in literature searches. Br Med J. 1998;316(7138):1166. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.316.7138.1166
5. Topfer L-A, Parada A, Menon D, Noorani H, Perras C, Serra-Prat M. Comparison of literature searches on quality and costs for health technology assessment using the MEDLINE and Embase databases. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15(2):297–303. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462399015226
6. Biarez O, Sarrut B, Doreau CG, Etienne J. Comparison and evaluation of nine bibliographic databases concerning adverse drug reactions. DICP Ann Pharmacother. 1991;25(10):1062–5.
7. Suarez-Almazor ME, Belseck E, Homik J, Dorgan M, Ramos-Remus C. Identifying clinical trials in the medical literature with electronic databases: MEDLINE alone is not enough. Control Clin Trials. 2000;21(5):476–87. DOI: 10.1016/S0197-2456(00)00067-2
8. Advanced search techniques [Version 03.22.00]. Ovid Technologies, Inc. Web site. https://resourcecenter.ovid.com/site/help/documentation/ospa/en/Content/syntax.htm. Accessed 17 Mar 2020.
9. Gomes F, Bergeron G, Bourassa MW, Dallmann D, Golan J, Hurley KM, et al. Interventions to increase adherence to micronutrient supplementation during pregnancy: a protocol for a systematic review. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2020. 10.1111/nyas.14319.
10. Khan F, Rahman A, Carrier M, Kearon C, Schulman S, Couturaud F, et al. Long-term risk of recurrence after discontinuing anticoagulants for a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2017;7(9):e016950. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016950
11. Aly M, O’Brien JW, Clark F, Kapur S, Stearns AT, Shaikh I. Does intra-operative flexible endoscopy reduce anastomotic complications following left-sided colonic resections? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Color Dis. 2019;21(12):1354–63. DOI: 10.1111/codi.14740
12. Ouweneel DM, Schotborgh JV, Limpens J, Sjauw KD, Engström AE, Lagrand WK. Extracorporeal life support during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(12):1922–34. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-016-4536-8
13. Covidence systematic review software. Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia. https://www.covidence.org. Accessed 17 Mar 2020.
14. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:e210. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
15. Kellermeyer L, Harnke B, Knight S. Covidence and Rayyan. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(4):580–3. DOI: 10.5195/JMLA.2018.513
16. Olofsson H, Brolund A, Hellberg C, Silverstein R, Stenström K, Österberg M, et al. Can abstract screening workload be reduced using text mining? User experiences of the tool Rayyan. Res Synth Methods. 2017;8(3):275–80. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1237
17. Kwon Y, Lemieux M, McTavish J, Wathen N. Identifying and removing duplicate records from systematic review searches. J Med Libr Assoc. 2015;103(4):184–8. DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.4.004
18. Shore R, Ioudovski P, McKeown S, Durmont E, Goldie C. Mapping psilocybin-assisted therapies: a scoping review. medRxiv. 2019; doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.04.19013896.
19. Halladay CW, Trikalinos TA, Schmid IT, Schmid CH, Dahabreh IJ. Using data sources beyond PubMed has a modest impact on the results of systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:1076–84. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.017
20. Sampson M, de Bruijn B, Urquhart C, Shojania K. Complementary approaches to searching MEDLINE may be sufficient for updating systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;78:108–15. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.03.004
21. Sampson M, Barrowman NJ, Moher D, Klassen TP, Pham B, Platt R, et al. Should meta-analysts search Embase in addition to Medline? J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:943–55. DOI: 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00110-0
22. Bai Y, Gao J, Zou D, Li Z. Is MEDLINE alone enough for a meta-analysis? Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2007;26:125–6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2007.03339.x
23. Rathbone J, Carter M, Hoffmann T, Glasziou P. Better duplicate detection for systematic reviewers: evaluation of systematic review assistant-deduplication module. Syst Rev. 2015; 4(6). https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-6.
24. Covidence systematic review software. How does Covidence detect duplicates? Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia. https://support.covidence.org/help/how-does-covidence-detect-duplicates. Updated 4 Feb 2019. Accessed 18 Mar 2020.
25. Zotero. Duplicate detection. https://www.zotero.org/support/duplicate_detection. Updated 25 Nov 2017. Accessed 18 Mar 2020.
26. Endnote Desktop X9. Find duplicate references. EndNote X9 Help User Guide. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Clarivate Analytics.
27. Clopper CJ, Pearson ES. The use of confidence or fiducial limits illustrated in the case of the binomial. Biometrika. 1934;26(4):404–13. DOI: 10.1093/biomet/26.4.404
28. Cook DJ, Reeve BK, Guyatt GH, Heyland D, Griffith L, Buckinghmam L, et al. Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically III patients: resolving discordant meta-analyses. J Am Med Assoc. 1996;275(4):308–14. DOI: 10.1001/jama.1996.03530280060038
29. The Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual: 2014 edition. Adelaide, Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2014. Available at: http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/reviewersmanual-2014.pdf
30. Kugley S, Wade A, Thomas J, Mahood Q, Jørgensen AMK, Hammerstrøm K, et al. Searching for studies: a guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews. Oslo: The Campbell Collaboration; 2017.
31. Bramer WM, Giustini D, de Jonge GB, Holland L, Bekhuis T. De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104(3):240–3. DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.014
32. Jiang Y, Lin C, Meng W, Yu C, Cohen AM, Smalheiser NR. Rule-based deduplication of article records from bibliographic databases. Database (Oxford). 2014. 10.1093/database/bat086.
33. Distiller SR. Evidence Partners Web site. 2020. https://www.evidencepartners.com. Accessed 17 Mar 2020.