Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Jan 14;4(1):6.
doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-6.

Better duplicate detection for systematic reviewers: evaluation of Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module

Affiliations

Better duplicate detection for systematic reviewers: evaluation of Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module

John Rathbone et al. Syst Rev. .

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Islamaj Dogan R, Murray GC, Névéol A, Lu Z. Understanding PubMed user search behavior through log analysis. Database J Biol Databases Curation. 2009;2009:1. - PMC - PubMed
    1. MEDLINE - fact sheet. [http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/medline.html]
    1. Embase. [http://www.ovid.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?storeId=130...]
    1. Lefebvre C, Eisinga A, McDonald S, Paul N. Enhancing access to reports of randomized trials published world-wide–the contribution of EMBASE records to the Cochrane central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane library. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. 2008;5:13. doi: 10.1186/1742-7622-5-13. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wallace BC, Trikalinos TA, Lau J, Brodley C, Schmid CH. Semi-automated screening of biomedical citations for systematic reviews. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010;11:1–11. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-11-55. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources