Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 20, 2025
Creating and Applying a Reference to Facilitate the Discussion and Classification of Proteins in a Diverse Group
Published on: August 16, 2017
Considerations for conducting systematic reviews: evaluating the performance of different methods for de-duplicating
Sandra McKeown1, Zuhaib M Mir2
1Bracken Health Sciences Library, Queen's University, 18 Stuart Street, Kingston, Ontario, K7L 2V5, Canada. sandra.mckeown@queensu.ca.
Background:
Systematic reviews involve searching multiple bibliographic databases to identify eligible studies. As this type of evidence synthesis is increasingly pursued, the use of various electronic platforms can help researchers improve the efficiency and quality of their research. We examined the accuracy and efficiency of commonly used electronic methods for flagging and removing duplicate references during this process.
Methods:
A heterogeneous sample of references was obtained by conducting a similar topical search in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO databases. References were de-duplicated via manual abstraction to create a benchmark set. The default settings were then used in Ovid multifile search, EndNote desktop, Mendeley, Zotero, Covidence, and Rayyan to de-duplicate the sample of references independently. Using the benchmark set as reference, the number of false-negative and false-positive duplicate references for each method was identified, and accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were determined.
Results:
We found that the most accurate methods for identifying duplicate references were Ovid, Covidence, and Rayyan. Ovid and Covidence possessed the highest specificity for identifying duplicate references, while Rayyan demonstrated the highest sensitivity.
Conclusion:
This study reveals the strengths and weaknesses of commonly used de-duplication methods and provides strategies for improving their performance to avoid unintentionally removing eligible studies and introducing bias into systematic reviews. Along with availability, ease-of-use, functionality, and capability, these findings are important to consider when researchers are selecting database platforms and supporting software programs for conducting systematic reviews.
Related Concept Videos
01:15Data Validation
Key parameters for method validation include:
01:15Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
02:26Comparing Copy Number Variations and SNPs
Copy number variations or CNVs are the structural variations that cover more than 1kb of DNA sequence. The single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), on the other hand, is a single nucleotide change or a point mutation that is found in more than 1%...
01:15Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Repeated Measures, Cross-Over, Carry-Over, and Latin Square Designs
02:08Gene Conversion
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...