The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 7 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote
Open accessAbstract
When conducting exhaustive searches for systematic reviews, information professionals search multiple databases with overlapping content [1][2][3][4].They typically remove duplicate records to reduce the reviewers' workload associated with screening titles and abstracts; sometimes the reviewers remove the duplicates.Several articles have been published recently on de-duplication methods.In the authors' opinion, these methods are either very time consuming [5] or impractical, as they require uploading large files to an online platform [6,7].A recent overview article compared existing software programs but found that none was truly satisfactory [8].Unique identifiers for journal articles are digital object identifiers (DOIs) and PubMed IDs (PMIDs).However, these identifiers are not present in every database.When they are present, they often cannot be exported easily.Thus, they cannot be relied upon to identify duplicates.An alternative involves using pagination, because the often large page numbers in scientific journals, in combination with other fields, can serve as a type of unique identifier.However, this is complicated by variations in the way page numbers are stored.Most biomedical databases use a long format (e.g.,
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This paper describes a detailed EndNote-based method for de-duplicating search results in systematic reviews, using page-number normalization and multiple field-comparison passes. The authors argue it is more systematic and reproducible than other approaches, with reduced manual checking and lower error rates, but it is tailored to EndNote and still fairly complex.
Key findings
- The method has three stages: change field/display settings, import records through a temporary library and adapted export/import filters, then run several duplicate-detection passes with different field settings and remove probable duplicates.
- The authors state that the time spent de-duplicating references and the error rate are “significantly reduced” because only a small subset of records needs manual assessment.
- The method relies on pagination because DOIs and PMIDs are not present in every database and often cannot be exported easily; the paper notes that most biomedical databases use long page-number formats (e.g., 1008-1012) while MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library use abbreviated formats (e.g., 1008-12).
- Table 1 lays out multiple duplicate-removal settings, including field combinations such as Author | Year | Title | Secondary (Journal) | Press, Delete, and other combinations involving Pages, Volume, and Issue.
Methods
- Design: A methods/tool article describing an EndNote workflow for de-duplication; the method was previously presented in a brief conference paper and is here described in detail for EndNote X7.
- Data/sample: Not an empirical sample; the paper discusses importing references from databases including PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library, and notes customized import filters for Embase.com, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Scopus.
- Main analysis: The workflow compares records across multiple field combinations in EndNote, after normalizing page-number formats via custom export/import filters, and uses repeated duplicate-finding steps plus manual checking of subsets to remove false duplicates.
Limitations
- The paper states the method is tuned to EndNote; it notes that Reference Manager was tried but “failed” because too many false duplicates were removed, and Reference Manager is no longer sold/support is likely discontinued.
- The paper says the method is “rather complicated” and has a “steep” learning curve. This is a limitation stated by the authors.
- Evident from the text: the method depends on databases exporting usable page numbers and journal-title formats, and the authors note that differences across databases and changes such as Cochrane’s switch to abbreviated page numbers and CINAHL’s page-length suffixes complicate the workflow.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
11 Own interpretation · 3 Sources not found · 2 No basis given · 1 Supported so far · 1 Own result
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“When conducting exhaustive searches for systematic reviews, information professionals search multiple databases with overlapping content [1-4].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1] 1. Levay P, Raynor M, Tuvey D. The contributions of MEDLINE, other bibliographic databases and various
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [2]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [3] 3. Lorenzetti DL, Topfer LA, Dennett L, Clement F. Value of databases other than MEDLINE for rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assessment Health Care. 2014;30(02):173-8. source
- Supportedcites [4] 4. Beyer FR, Wright K. Can we prioritise which databases to search? a case study using a systematic review of frozen shoulder management. Health Inf Libr J. 2013; 30(1):49-58. source
The Abstract says that comprehensive searches for systematic reviews use multiple databases and that searching and screening their results can be resource-intensive. The Comparison with previous work section describes substantial overlap in trials found across CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Together, these support the cited background statement. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, when we tried our method in Reference Manager, it failed: too many false duplicates were removed.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The only alternative software to EndNote in which the fields that are to be compared in the de-duplication process can be changed is Reference Manager, also provided by Thomson Reuters [14].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [14] 14. Reference Manager. Version 12. Thomson Reuters; 2008.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The limitation of this method is that it is tuned to EndNote”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Reference Manager allows comparisons by start pages.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [14] 14. Reference Manager. Version 12. Thomson Reuters; 2008.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, they cannot be relied upon to identify duplicates.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: DOIs and PMIDs are not present in every database.
- Rests on an assumption: When DOIs and PMIDs are present, they often cannot be exported easily.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 10
- It may state two separate claims as one. 5
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“however, in older versions, step 2 in the third column of rows C and D in Table 1 will not work as desired because duplicate references are not highlighted.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It will also work in earlier versions (versions X3 and higher)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If performed frequently, librarian-mediated de-duplication services can be faster than current methods and less error prone.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A recent overview article compared existing software programs but found that none was truly satisfactory [8].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [8]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, simplification of the method (e.g., by reducing the number of different field combinations or by not normalizing page numbers) increases the workload by increasing the number of references to manually assess.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The comparison of start page numbers in Reference Manager appears to be flawed; therefore, tailoring by our method for Reference Manager is not a good alternative.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The time spent de-duplicating references and the error rate are significantly reduced because just a small subset of the search results has to be assessed manually.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The last two steps require some additional manual assessment, but screening by page numbers expedites the work, and the number of references to assess is lower than in other methods.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A requisite of this method is that for efficient deduplication, page numbers should include both a start and an end page.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The method described in this paper is for the most recent version of EndNote for Windows, version X7.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The method's strength is based on the specificity of the first two steps, which require no manual assessment.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although this is not strictly necessary, it improves the sensitivity of the first step and, thus, reduces the number of references that have to be checked manually.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Information professionals typically remove duplicate records to reduce the reviewers' workload associated with screening titles and abstracts; sometimes the reviewers remove the duplicates.
“They typically remove duplicate records to reduce the reviewers' workload associated with screening titles and abstracts; sometimes the reviewers remove the duplicates.”
The paper relies on this without support.
DOIs and PMIDs are not present in every database.
“However, these identifiers are not present in every database.”
The paper relies on this without support.
When DOIs and PMIDs are present, they often cannot be exported easily.
“When they are present, they often cannot be exported easily.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Page numbers, in combination with other fields, can serve as a type of unique identifier.
“An alternative involves using pagination, because the often large page numbers in scientific journals, in combination with other fields, can serve as a type of unique identifier.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Variations in the way page numbers are stored complicate using pagination.
“However, this is complicated by variations in the way page numbers are stored.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most biomedical databases use a long page number format (e.g., 1008-1012).
“Most biomedical databases use a long format (e.g., 1008-1012)”
The paper relies on this without support.
MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library use an abbreviated page number format (e.g., 1008-12).
“two important databases (MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library) use an abbreviated one (e.g., 1008-12).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The de-duplication method designed for EndNote is more systematic, rigorous, and reproducible than procedures regularly carried out by other information professionals.
“Although the de-duplication method that we designed for EndNote resembles procedures regularly carried out by other information professionals, it is more systematic, rigorous, and reproducible.”
The paper relies on this without support.
EndNote is commonly used to manage bibliographic records.
“however, EndNote is commonly used to manage bibliographic records.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Reference Manager is no longer for sale, and support for Reference Manager will likely be discontinued.
“Additionally, Reference Manager is no longer for sale, and support for Reference Manager will likely be discontinued.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Databases differ in the format of the exported journal titles.
“Databases also differ in the format of the exported journal titles.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Some databases use abbreviations, while others provide full journal titles.
“Some databases use abbreviations, while others provide full journal titles.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Cochrane recently switched from exporting full page numbers to abbreviated page numbers.
“Cochrane recently switched from exporting full page numbers to abbreviated page numbers”
The paper relies on this without support.
CINAHL recently appended the length of the article in the fields for page numbers (e.g., in the format 1008-1012 5p).
“CINAHL recently appended the length of the article in the fields for page numbers (e.g., in the format 1008-1012 5p).”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“When combined with human validation, adding import filters for various databases, following specific configurations in EndNote, and considering specific order of metadata import increases sensitivity [ 12 ]”
From Reducing systematic review burden using Deduklick: a novel, automated, reliable, and explainable deduplication algorithm to foster medical research (2022) · cites this paper as [12]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“When searching in multiple databases and additional information sources, as is necessary for a systematic review, authors often employ a variety of techniques to reduce the number of duplicates within their results prior to screening [135 -138].”
From PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews (2021) · cites this paper as [136]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Techniques vary in their efficacy, sensitivity, and specificity (Table 2) [136, 138].”
From PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews (2021) · cites this paper as [136]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The database has been cleared of duplicates using Endnote 21 through the de-duplication method detailed in Bramer et al. (2016).”
From Digital material passports in the AEC industry: a scoping review and conceptualisation of future research challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Bramer et al. (2016)
In the citing paper
“Duplicate articles were excluded by a medical information specialist (LS) using Endnote X20.4 (Clarivate™), following the Amsterdam Efficient Deduplication (AED) method and the Bramer-method (Bramer et al., 2016; Otten et al., 2019).”
From The pursuit for markers of disease progression in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia: a scoping review to optimize outcome measures for clinical trials (2024) · cites this paper as Bramer et al., 2016
Citations
Cites
Rathbone, J., Carter, M., Hoffmann, T., & Glasziou, P. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-6 · Cited by 206
Identifying and removing duplicate records from systematic review searches
Kwon, Y., Lemieux, M., McTavish, J., & Wathen, N. (2015) · Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · doi:10.3163/1536-5050.103.4.004 · Cited by 178 · cited 1×
“A recent overview article compared existing software programs but found that none was truly satisfactory [8].”
Find Duplicates among the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Databases in Systematic Review
Qi, X., Yang, M., Ren, W., Jia, J., Wang, J., Han, G., & Fan, D. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071838 · Cited by 98
Beyer, F. R., & Wright, K. (2013) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/hir.12009 · Cited by 47
Rule-based deduplication of article records from bibliographic databases
Jiang, Y., Lin, C., Meng, W., Yu, C., Cohen, A. M., & Smalheiser, N. R. (2014) · Database · doi:10.1093/database/bat086 · Cited by 41 · cited 1×
“In the authors’ opinion, these methods are either very time consuming [5] or impractical, as they require uploading large files to an online platform [6, 7].”
VALUE OF DATABASES OTHER THAN MEDLINE FOR RAPID HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS
Lorenzetti, D. L., Topfer, L.-A., Dennett, L., & Clement, F. (2014) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462314000166 · Cited by 30
Levay, P., Raynor, M., & Tuvey, D. (2015) · Evidence Based Library and Information Practice · doi:10.18438/b82p55 · Cited by 26
Information Retrieval in Telemedicine: a Comparative Study on Bibliographic Databases
Ahmadi, M., Sarabi, R. E., Orak, R. J., & Bahaadinbeigy, K. (2015) · Acta Informatica Medica · doi:10.5455/aim.2015.23.172-176 · Cited by 8
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- [2]2. search techniques to NICE public health guidance. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract. 2015;10(1):50-68.
- [9]9. Bramer WM, Holland L, Mollema J, Hannon T, Bekhuis - T. Removing duplicates in retrieval sets from electronic databases: comparing the efficiency and accuracy of the Bramer-method with other methods and software packages. Proceedings of the 14th European Association for Health Information and Libraries (EAHIL) Conference, 57-9; Rome, Italy; 11-13 Jun 2014.
- [11]11. National Library of Medicine. PubMed [Internet]. The Library; 2016 [cited 4 Feb 2016]. , http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/ . .
- [12]12. Ovid MEDLINE [Internet]. Wolters Kluwer; 2016 [cited 4 Feb 2016]. , http://site.ovid.com/pdf/ OvidMedline\_fs.pdf . .
- [13]13. Cochrane. Cochrane Library [Internet]. John Wiley & Sons; 2016 [cited 4 Feb 2016]. , http://www. cochranelibrary.com . .
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., & Koffel, J. (2019) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/sfc38 · Cited by 3,696
Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., Koffel, J. B., PRISMA-S Group, Blunt, H., Brigham, T., et al. (2021) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z · Cited by 3,714
Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Bujold, M., & Wassef, M. (2017) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0454-2 · Cited by 754
ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of choledocholithiasis
Buxbaum, J. L., Fehmi, S. M. A., Sultan, S., Fishman, D. S., Qumseya, B. J., Cortessis, V. K., Schilperoort, H. M., Kysh, L., Matsuoka, L. K., Yachimski, P., et al. (2019) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2018.10.001 · Cited by 704
“False negatives (patients incorrectly classified as not having [target condition]) 1 (0-4) 6 (2-18) 15 (5-45)”
BackgroundDrost, F. H., Osses, D. F., Nieboer, D., Steyerberg, E. W., Bangma, C. H., Roobol, M. J., & Schoots, I. G. (2019) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd012663.pub2 · Cited by 677
Loneliness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
Ernst, M., Niederer, D., Werner, A. M., Czaja, S. J., Mikton, C., Ong, A. D., Rosen, T., Brähler, E., & Beutel, M. E. (2022) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0001005 · Cited by 584
“Duplicate records were removed following several steps as suggested by Bramer et al. (2016).”
MethodCooper, C., Booth, A., Varley-Campbell, J., Britten, N., & Garside, R. (2018) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0545-3 · Cited by 561
“Bramer et al. set out methods for de-duplicating data and reviewing references in Endnote [103, 104] and Gall tests the direct search function within Endnote to access databases such as PubMed, finding a number of limitations [105].”
MethodBaxi, S. S., Yang, A. W., Gennarelli, R. L., Khan, N., Wang, Z., Boyce, L. M., & Korenstein, D. R. (2018) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.k793 · Cited by 585
“12”
Ludyga, S., Gerber, M., Pühse, U., Looser, V. N., & Kamijo, K. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0851-8 · Cited by 522
Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., Koffel, J. B., & PRISMA-S Group (2021) · Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA · doi:10.5195/jmla.2021.962 · Cited by 525
“Techniques vary in their efficacy, sensitivity, and specificity (Box 1) [136, 138].”
BackgroundPanel, S. G. P. C., Hoekstra, F., Mrklas, K., Khan, M., McKay, R. C., Vis‐Dunbar, M., Sibley, K. M., Nguyen, T., Graham, I. D., & Gainforth, H. L. (2020) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-020-0544-9 · Cited by 365
Determinants of Ageism against Older Adults: A Systematic Review
Marques, S., Mariano, J., Mendonça, J., Tavernier, W. D., Heß, M., Naegele, L., Peixeiro, F., & Martins, D. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17072560 · Cited by 385
Bram, J. T., Magee, L. C., Mehta, N. N., Patel, N. M., & Ganley, T. J. (2021) · The American Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1177/0363546520959619 · Cited by 334
“This search strategy, conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, generated 7087 articles for a title review after the removal of duplicates using a previously described methodology (Figure 1).(4) Titles were then reviewed to eliminate those that were…”
MethodBullock, A. F., Greenley, S. L., McKenzie, G. A. G., Paton, L. W., & Johnson, M. J. (2020) · European Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1038/s41430-020-0629-0 · Cited by 270
Alberts, C. J., Clifford, G. M., Georges, D., Negro, F., Lesi, O. A., Hutin, Y. J., & de Martel, C. (2022) · The Lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology · doi:10.1016/s2468-1253(22)00050-4 · Cited by 299
Are Financial Payments From the Pharmaceutical Industry Associated With Physician Prescribing?
Mitchell, A. P., Trivedi, N. U., Gennarelli, R. L., Chimonas, S. C., Tabatabai, S. M., Goldberg, J., Diaz, L. A., & Korenstein, D. R. (2020) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m20-5665 · Cited by 262
McKeown, S., & Mir, Z. M. (2021) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01583-y · Cited by 251
Updating search strategies for systematic reviews using EndNote
Bramer, W., & Bain, P. (2017) · Journal of the Medical Library Association · doi:10.5195/jmla.2017.183 · Cited by 250
Self-citationDaniel, M., Gordon, M., Patricio, M., Hider, A., Pawlik, C., Bhagdev, R., Ahmad, S., Alston, S., Park, S., Pawlikowska, T., et al. (2021) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2020.1864310 · Cited by 246
“Deduplication was conducted using Endnote (Bramer et al. 2016).”
Meta-Analytic Methodology for Basic Research: A Practical Guide
Mikolajewicz, N., & Komarova, S. V. (2019) · Frontiers in Physiology · doi:10.3389/fphys.2019.00203 · Cited by 247
Cowie, J., Nicoll, A., Dimova, E. D., Campbell, P., & Duncan, E. (2020) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-020-05434-9 · Cited by 276
Zintel, S., Flock, C., Arbogast, A. L., Forster, A. S., von Wagner, C., & Sieverding, M. (2021) · Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1007/s10389-021-01677-w · Cited by 263
Gotschall, T. (2021) · Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA · doi:10.5195/jmla.2021.1260 · Cited by 199
“discuss the pitfalls of using these identifiers for deduplication and instead provide a method for conducting a more effective and accurate procedure [3].”
MethodChai, K. E. K., Lines, R. L. J., Gucciardi, D. F., & Ng, L. (2021) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01635-3 · Cited by 190
“Using a traditional manual approach [6], the de-duplication took approximately 7 h to complete, though with Research Screener this process was completed in a matter of seconds.”
MethodFranssen, W. M. A., Franssen, G. H. L. M., Spaas, J., Solmi, F., & Eijnde, B. O. (2020) · International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity · doi:10.1186/s12966-020-00955-2 · Cited by 193
“[26] and a first selection was performed based on titles and abstracts to identify relevant studies.”
BackgroundCOVID-19 infodemic and digital health literacy in vulnerable populations: A scoping review
Choukou, M.-A., Sanchez‐Ramirez, D. C., Pol, M., Uddin, M., Monnin, C., & Syed-Abdul, S. (2022) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076221076927 · Cited by 206
“All records were exported into EndNote (version x9; Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA), and duplicates were removed.(36) All records were screened in Rayyan – a free online tool used for initial screening of articles to support systematic or narrative, or scoping review processes.”
MethodHanna, N., Tamhankar, A. J., & Lundborg, C. S. (2023) · The Lancet Planetary Health · doi:10.1016/s2542-5196(22)00254-6 · Cited by 185
Midline incisional hernia guidelines: the European Hernia Society
Sanders, D. L., Pawlak, M. M., Simons, M. P., Aufenacker, T. J., Balla, A., Berger, C., Berrevoet, F. C., de Beaux, A. C., East, B., Henriksen, N. A., et al. (2023) · British journal of surgery · doi:10.1093/bjs/znad284 · Cited by 177
“2 (Clarivate Analytics) using the method described by Bramer et al. 17 .”
MethodBethell, J., Aelick, K., Babineau, J., Bretzlaff, M., Edwards, C., Gibson, J., Colborne, D. H., Iaboni, A., Lender, D., Schon, D., et al. (2020) · Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2020.11.025 · Cited by 175
Vulnerability to heatwaves and implications for public health interventions – A scoping review
Mayrhuber, E. A.-S., Dückers, M., Wallner, P., Arnberger, A., Allex, B., Wiesböck, L., Wanka, A., Kolland, F., Eder, R., Hutter, H., et al. (2018) · Environmental Research · doi:10.1016/j.envres.2018.05.021 · Cited by 161
Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review
Spencer, A. J., & Eldredge, J. D. (2018) · Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA · doi:10.5195/jmla.2018.82 · Cited by 157
“Some reports have examined different methods of deduplication for specific products and databases, and analyzed the strengths and weaknesses for each method [16, 17].”
BackgroundGuetterman, T. C., Fàbregues, S., & Sakakibara, R. (2021) · Methods in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.metip.2021.100080 · Cited by 160
Association Between Marijuana Use and Risk of Cancer
Ghasemiesfe, M., Barrow, B., Leonard, S. J., Keyhani, S., & Korenstein, D. (2019) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.16318 · Cited by 135
Borle, P., Reichel, K., Niebuhr, F., & Voelter‐Mahlknecht, S. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18168673 · Cited by 199
“After deduplication according to validated steps [21], 321 articles were screened based on title and abstract.”
MethodWhat is known about paediatric nurse burnout: a scoping review
Buckley, L., Berta, W. B., Cleverley, K., Medeiros, C., & Widger, K. A. (2020) · Human Resources for Health · doi:10.1186/s12960-020-0451-8 · Cited by 166
“All citations retrieved from the databases were uploaded into Endnote with duplicates removed as per protocol [21] .”
MethodEffective strategies for scaling up evidence-based practices in primary care: a systematic review
Charif, A. B., Zomahoun, H. T. V., LeBlanc, A., Langlois, L., Wolfenden, L., Yoong, S. L., Williams, C. M., Lépine, R., & Légaré, F. (2017) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0672-y · Cited by 146
“Duplicate search results were identified by the software and were eliminated using a method that enables retaining unique citations without accidentally excluding false duplicates [35].”
MethodThielen, F. W. F., van Mastrigt, G. A. P. G., Burgers, L. T., Bramer, W. M., Majoie, M., Evers, S., & Kleijnen, J. (2016) · Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research · doi:10.1080/14737167.2016.1246962 · Cited by 138
Self-citationMarine harmful algal blooms and human health: A systematic scoping review
Young, N., Sharpe, R. A., Barciela, R. M., Nichols, G. L., Davidson, K., Berdalet, E., & Fleming, L. E. (2020) · Harmful Algae · doi:10.1016/j.hal.2020.101901 · Cited by 140
Stojan, J., Haas, M. R., Thammasitboon, S., Lander, L. I., Evans, S. J., Pawlik, C., Pawilkowska, T., Lew, M., Khamees, D., Peterson, W., et al. (2021) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/0142159x.2021.1992373 · Cited by 144
“Deduplication was conducted using the modified Bramer method (Bramer et al. 2016).”
MethodWillems, R. P. J., van Dijk, K., Vehreschild, M. J. G. T., Biehl, L. M., Ket, J. C. F., Remmelzwaal, S., & Vandenbroucke‐Grauls, C. M. J. E. (2023) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(22)00811-8 · Cited by 129
Evaluating the effectiveness of virtual reality for safety-relevant training: a systematic review
Stefan, H., Mortimer, M., & Horan, B. (2023) · Virtual Reality · doi:10.1007/s10055-023-00843-7 · Cited by 171
“After isolating the appropriate period, duplicate results were removed following the guidelines by Bramer et al. (2016).”
MethodBorissov, N., Haas, Q., Minder, B., Kopp-Heim, D., von Gernler, M., Janka, H., Teodoro, D., & Amini, P. (2022) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-022-02045-9 · Cited by 116
“For example, EndNote [13] is a widely used reference management tool [14] (among others such as Mendeley, RefWorks, and Zotero) offering an integrated deduplication feature, which usually demands careful, multistep configuration procedures [12, 15, 16].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialManaging and Coding References for Systematic Reviews and Scoping Reviews in EndNote
Peters, M. D. J. (2017) · Medical Reference Services Quarterly · doi:10.1080/02763869.2017.1259891 · Cited by 117
Mixed methods research in library and information science: A methodological review
Granikov, V., Hong, Q. N., Crist, E., & Pluye, P. (2020) · Library & Information Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2020.101003 · Cited by 152
The Prevalence of Insomnia Disorder in the General Population: A Meta‐Analysis
van Straten, A., Weinreich, K. J., Fábián, B., Reesen, J. E., Grigori, S., Luik, A. I., Harrer, M., & Lancee, J. (2025) · Journal of Sleep Research · doi:10.1111/jsr.70089 · Cited by 140
Wilhelm, J. A., & Helleringer, S. (2019) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · doi:10.7189/jogh.09.010406 · Cited by 115
Srebniak, M. I., Joosten, M., Knapen, M. F. C. M., Arends, L. R., POLAK, M. G., van Veen, S., Go, A. T. J. I., & Opstal, D. V. (2017) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.17533 · Cited by 111
Messiha, K., Chinapaw, M. J. M., Ket, J. C. F., An, Q., Anand-Kumar, V., Longworth, G. R., CHASTIN, S. F. M., & Altenburg, T. M. (2023) · Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdad046 · Cited by 122
“28 All references were then uploaded to Rayyan systematic software, 29 to perform screening.”
Skořepa, P., Ford, K. L., Alsuwaylihi, A., O’Connor, D., Prado, C. M. M., Gomez, D., & Lobo, D. N. (2024) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2024.01.020 · Cited by 119
“The search results from all databases were imported in EndNote 20.5 software (https://endnote.com) and deduplicated using the method described by Bramer et al. [34].”
InfluentialAutomation of duplicate record detection for systematic reviews: Deduplicator
Forbes, C., Greenwood, H., Carter, M., & Clark, J. M. (2024) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-024-02619-9 · Cited by 135
“Although there have been attempts to standardise semi-manual deduplication methods, they rely on the steps being applied consistently and are limited to certain reference management software (e.g. EndNote) [9].”
MethodAxelsson, E., & Hedman-Lagerlöf, E. (2019) · Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research · doi:10.1080/14737167.2019.1703182 · Cited by 96
“We performed systematic de-duplication of search hits in EndNote X9 [29].”
MethodTolerable upper intake level for dietary sugars
EFSA Panel on Nutrition, N. F. A. F. A. (., Turck, D., Bohn, T., Castenmiller, J. J. M., Henauw, S. D., Hirsch‐Ernst, K. I., Knutsen, H. K., Maciuk, A., Mangelsdorf, I., McArdle, H. J., et al. (2022) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7074 · Cited by 133
Do informal caregivers experience more burnout? A meta-analytic study
Gérain, P., & Zech, E. (2020) · Psychology Health & Medicine · doi:10.1080/13548506.2020.1803372 · Cited by 107
Citation tracking for systematic literature searching: A scoping review
Hirt, J., Nordhausen, T., Appenzeller‐Herzog, C., & Ewald, H. (2023) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1635 · Cited by 105
“CAH conducted the database searches and CT, exported results to EndNote X9 (Clarivate), and eliminated duplicates using the Bramer method.(22) JH conducted the web search and contacted the experts.”
MethodBarriers and enablers to physical activity in patients during hospital stay: a scoping review
Geelen, S. J. G., van Dijk - Huisman, H. C., de Bie, R. A., Veenhof, C., Engelbert, R., van der Schaaf, M., & Lenssen, A. F. (2021) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01843-x · Cited by 94
“1 (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA) [31].”
Kočo, L., Weekenstroo, H. H. A., Lambregts, D. M. J., Sedelaar, J. P. M., Prokop, M., Fütterer, J. J., & Mann, R. M. (2021) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers13164159 · Cited by 110
“Abstracts of articles yielded from the search were imported in Endnote, and duplicates were removed [12].”
MethodASGE guideline on the management of cholangitis
Buxbaum, J. L., Buitrago, C. A., Lee, A. A., Elmunzer, B. J., Riaz, A., Ceppa, E. P., Al-Haddad, M., Amateau, S. K., Calderwood, A. H., Fishman, D. S., et al. (2021) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2020.12.032 · Cited by 103
“2 (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, Pa, USA), duplicates were removed using the Bramer method, and the remainder were uploaded into Covidence (Melbourne, Australia) for screening.(7)”
MethodZintel, S., Flock, C., Arbogast, A. L., Forster, A. S., von Wagner, C., & Sieverding, M. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3803323 · Cited by 95
Nieste, I., Franssen, W. M. A., Spaas, J., Bruckers, L. M., Savelberg, H. H. C. M., & Eijnde, B. O. (2021) · Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106593 · Cited by 100
Omuya, H., Nickel, C., Wilson, P., & Chewning, B. A. (2023) · International Journal of Pharmacy Practice · doi:10.1093/ijpp/riad025 · Cited by 101
Proposing a re-conceptualisation of competency framework terminology for health: a scoping review
Mills, J.-A., Middleton, J. W., Schafer, A., Fitzpatrick, S., Short, S. D., & Cieza, A. (2020) · Human Resources for Health · doi:10.1186/s12960-019-0443-8 · Cited by 93
Fegran, L., ten Ham‐Baloyi, W., Fossum, M., et al. (2022) · Nursing Open · doi:10.1002/nop2.1426 · Cited by 95
“The retrieved items from the database search were uploaded to EndNote reference manager version 9.3 to deduplicate the retrieved reports, according to Bramer et al. (2016).”
MethodInfluentialDoodkorte, R., Vercoulen, T. F. G., Roth, A. K., et al. (2021) · The Spine Journal · doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2021.01.011 · Cited by 92
The direct and indirect financial costs of informal cancer care: A scoping review
Coumoundouros, C., Ould Brahim, L., Lambert, S. D., & McCusker, J. (2019) · Health & Social Care in the Community · doi:10.1111/hsc.12808 · Cited by 92
Singh, N., Varghese, J., England, B. R., Solomon, J. J., Michaud, K., Mikuls, T. R., Healy, H. S., Kimpston, E. M., & Schweizer, M. L. (2019) · Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism · doi:10.1016/j.semarthrit.2019.04.005 · Cited by 90
Pilipiec, P., Groot, W. N. J., & Pavlova, M. (2020) · Journal of Population Ageing · doi:10.1007/s12062-020-09280-9 · Cited by 90
Barbetta, A., Aljehani, M. A., Kim, M. H., Tien, C., Ahearn, A., Schilperoort, H. M., Sher, L. S., & Emamaullee, J. A. (2020) · American Journal of Transplantation · doi:10.1111/ajt.16440 · Cited by 94
Moiz, A., Levett, J. Y., Filion, K. B., Peri, K., Reynier, P., & Eisenberg, M. J. (2024) · The American Journal of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.04.041 · Cited by 97
Red Flag Signs and Symptoms for Patients With Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer
Demb, J., Kolb, J. M., Dounel, J., Fritz, C. D. L., Advani, S., Cao, Y., Coppernoll-Blach, P., Dwyer, A. J., Perea, J., Heskett, K. M., et al. (2024) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.13157 · Cited by 92
Under-reporting of sport-related concussions by adolescent athletes: a systematic review
Pennock, K. F., McKenzie, B., Steacy, L. M., & Mainwaring, L. M. (2020) · International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1750984x.2020.1824243 · Cited by 87
“Articles were de-duplicated using the Bramer method (Bramer et al., 2016).”
MethodDrivers, barriers and performance outcomes of sustainable packaging: a systematic literature review
Afif, K., Rebolledo, C., & Roy, J. (2021) · British Food Journal · doi:10.1108/bfj-02-2021-0150 · Cited by 88
The neurobiological reward system in Prolonged Grief Disorder (PGD): A systematic review
Kakarala, S. E., Roberts, K. E., Rogers, M., Coats, T., Falzarano, F., Gang, J., Chilov, M., Avery, J., Maciejewski, P. K., Lichtenthal, W. G., et al. (2020) · Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/j.pscychresns.2020.111135 · Cited by 85
Searching clinical trials registers: guide for systematic reviewers
Hunter, K. E., Webster, A. C., Page, M. J., Willson, M. L., McDonald, S. J., Berber, S., Skeers, P., Tan, A. G., Parkhill, A., & Seidler, A. L. (2022) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2021-068791 · Cited by 94
Champendal, M., Müller, H., Prior, J. O., & dos Reis, C. S. (2023) · European Journal of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.111159 · Cited by 104
Exercise for individuals with bone metastases: A systematic review
Weller, S., Hart, N. H., Bolam, K. A., Mansfield, S., Santa Mina, D., Winters-Stone, K. M., Campbell, A., Rosenberger, F., Wiskemann, J., Quist, M., et al. (2021) · Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology · doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103433 · Cited by 84
Maheu, C., Singh, M. D., Tock, W. L., Eyrenci, A., Galica, J., Hébert, M., Frati, F., & Estapé, T. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.644932 · Cited by 91
Ineichen, B. V., Furrer, E., Grüninger, S., Zürrer, W. E., & Macleod, M. R. (2024) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3002667 · Cited by 117
Gandhi, K., Barzegar‐Fallah, A., Banstola, A., Rizwan, S. B., & Reynolds, J. N. J. (2022) · Pharmaceutics · doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics14040833 · Cited by 82
“Investigations have noted significant variation in the extravasation of these agents as a response to altered administration times [37,66] relative to each sonication and to the route of chosen delivery [72] (e.”
BackgroundMethodPluim, B. M., Jansen, M. G. T., Williamson, S. J., Berry, C., Camporesi, S., Fagher, K., Heron, N., van Rensburg, D. C. J., Moreno-Pérez, V., Murray, A. D., et al. (2023) · Sports Medicine · doi:10.1007/s40279-022-01807-8 · Cited by 91
“1 (ClarivateTM), following the Amsterdam Efficient Deduplication method [13] and the Bramer method [14].”
MethodMcCready, J. L., Nichol, B., Steen, M., Unsworth, J., Comparcini, D., & Tomietto, M. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0280439 · Cited by 88
“All retrieved citations were imported into EndNote and duplicates were removed per the deduplication process proposed by Bramer and colleagues [14].”
MethodPatient and caregiver experience with delayed discharge from a hospital setting: A scoping review
Everall, A. C., Guilcher, S. J. T., Cadel, L., Asif, M., Li, J., & Kuluski, K. (2019) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.12916 · Cited by 81
The effect of time spent in rehabilitation on activity limitation and impairment after stroke
Clark, B., Whitall, J., Kwakkel, G., Mehrholz, J., Ewings, S. M., & Burridge, J. H. (2021) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd012612.pub2 · Cited by 89
Sexual function and reproduction can be impaired in men with rheumatic diseases: A systematic review
Pérez-García, L. F., Winkel, B. T., Carrizales-Rodríguez, J., Bramer, W. M., Vorstenbosch, S., van Puijenbroek, E., Hazes, J. M. W., & Dolhain, R. J. E. M. (2020) · Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism · doi:10.1016/j.semarthrit.2020.02.002 · Cited by 82
“[10] Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. Evaluation of a new method for librarian-mediated literature searches for systematic reviews.”
MethodInfluentialSelf-citationImplementation of welfare technology: a systematic review of barriers and facilitators
Zander, V., Gustafsson, C., Stridsberg, S. L., & Borg, J. (2021) · Disability and Rehabilitation Assistive Technology · doi:10.1080/17483107.2021.1938707 · Cited by 86
Cancer‐related inflammation and depressive symptoms: Systematic review and meta‐analysis
McFarland, D. C., Doherty, M. J., Atkinson, T. M., O’Hanlon, R., BREITBART, W. S., Nelson, C. J., & Miller, A. H. (2022) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.34193 · Cited by 88
Ehrlich, B. S., McNeil, M. J., Pham, L. T. D., Chen, Y., Rivera, J., Acuña, C., Sniderman, E., Sakaan, F. M., Aceituno, A. M., Villegas, C., et al. (2023) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(23)00318-2 · Cited by 80
Schopow, N., Osterhoff, G., & Baur, D. (2023) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/48933 · Cited by 86
“Traditional approaches to systematic reviews are often labor-intensive and time-consuming, involving manual screening of literature and information extraction [26].”
BackgroundSchuttert, I., Timmerman, H., Petersen, K. K., McPhee, M. E., Arendt‐Nielsen, L., Reneman, M. F., & Wolff, A. P. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm10245931 · Cited by 87
(2023) · doi:10.1186/s12915-023-01686-z · Cited by 103
“Effective duplicate removal is an essential, if under-appreciated, part of the data identification process of systematic reviews [4, 5].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialComplementary and alternative medicine therapies and COVID-19: a systematic review
Badakhsh, M., Dastras, M., Sarchahi, Z., Doostkami, M., Mir, A., & Bouya, S. (2021) · Reviews on Environmental Health · doi:10.1515/reveh-2021-0012 · Cited by 78
Kuznia, S., Zhu, A., Akutsu, T., Buring, J. E., Camargo, C. A., Cook, N. R., Chen, L., Cheng, T. D., Hantunen, S., Lee, I.-M. M., et al. (2023) · Ageing Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.arr.2023.101923 · Cited by 80
Kosic, A., Lindholm, P., Järvholm, K., Hedman-Lagerlöf, E., & Axelsson, E. (2020) · Journal of Anxiety Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102208 · Cited by 77
Cohen, F., & Yaeger, L. (2021) · Implementation Research and Practice · doi:10.1177/2633489521998790 · Cited by 80
“A total of 91 duplicate records were deleted after using the de-duplication processes described in “De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote” (Bramer et al., 2016), resulting in a total of 174 unique citations included in the project library.”
MethodBaroutsou, V., Underhill-Blazey, M. L., Appenzeller‐Herzog, C., & Katapodi, M. C. (2021) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers13040925 · Cited by 83
Koeckerling, D., Raguindin, P. F., Kastrati, L., Bernhard, S., Barker, J., Centeno, A., Raeisi‐Dehkordi, H., Khatami, F., Niehot, C. D., Lejay, A., et al. (2023) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehac722 · Cited by 76
Liu, L. L., Skribek, M., Harmenberg, U., & Gerling, M. (2023) · Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer · doi:10.1136/jitc-2022-005841 · Cited by 76
Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcomes following Surgical Treatment of Lymphedema
Coriddi, M. R., Dayan, J. H., Sobti, N., Nash, D. B., Goldberg, J., Klassen, A. F., Pusic, A. L., & Mehrara, B. J. (2020) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers12030565 · Cited by 80
“We saved all references to the citation management software EndNote and removed duplicates following the Bramer Method [23].”
MethodLaohaviraphap, N., & Waroonkun, T. (2024) · Buildings · doi:10.3390/buildings14123979 · Cited by 104
Multidisciplinary Simulation-Based Team Training for Trauma Resuscitation: A Scoping Review
McLaughlin, C. M., Barry, W. E., Barin, E. N., Kysh, L., Auerbach, M. A., Upperman, J. S., Burd, R. S., & Jensen, A. R. (2019) · Journal of surgical education · doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2019.05.002 · Cited by 73
Umbrella review and Delphi study on modifiable factors for dementia risk reduction
Rosenau, C., Köhler, S., Soons, L. M., Anstey, K. J., Brayne, C., Brodaty, H., Engedal, K., Farina, F. R., Ganguli, M., Livingston, G., et al. (2024) · Alzheimer's & Dementia · doi:10.1002/alz.13577 · Cited by 74
Metadata
- Authors
- Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D., de Jonge, G. B., Holland, L., & Bekhuis, T.
- Affiliations
- Erasmus MC (NL)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Southern College of Optometry (US)
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Venue
- Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA
- Published
- 2016-07
- Volume
- 104
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 240-243
- ISSN
- 1536-5050 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-9439
- PMC
- PMC4915647
- OpenAlex
- W2471940872
- Cited by
- 2,103
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 346 · 2025: 333 · 2024: 419 · 2023: 340 · 2022: 252 · 2021: 218 · 2020: 113 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 5.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
- EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Quality and Management
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Keywords
- data deduplication, duplicate records, database search results, systematic reviews, EndNote, information professionals, bibliographic databases
- MeSH terms
- Review Literature as Topic, Databases, Bibliographic, Information Storage and Retrieval
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
