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
Items 1,501–1,600 of 1,918
Resilience Among Indigenous Graduate Nursing Students: A Scoping Review
Sedgwick, M. G., Crosschild, C., Rohatinsky, N., et al. (2025) · Quality Advancement in Nursing Education - Avancées en formation infirmière · doi:10.17483/wchcfb73 · Cited by 1
Essilini, A., Christensen, J. F. M. M., Wallace, E., Flood, M., Friars, R., Powell, H., Doherty, A. S., Mangin, D. A., Jűrgens, G., Moriarty, F., et al. (2025) · Wellcome Open Research · doi:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.24559.1
Wei, W., Peng, R., Kuang, L., et al. (2019) · Oncology Letters · doi:10.3892/ol.2019.11094 · Cited by 1
“The reference management software EndNote (version X7) (52) was used to identify and remove duplicate records.”
Psychosocial outcomes for adults with spina bifida
BETZ, C. L., Smith, K., Kysh, L., et al. (2019) · The JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-d-19-00072 · Cited by 1
Examining the Reach and Impact of a Systematic Review Service
Healy, H. S., Regan, M., & DeBerg, J. (2020) · Medical Reference Services Quarterly · doi:10.1080/02763869.2020.1726150 · Cited by 1
“Results were imported into an EndNote library and duplicates were removed using the Bramer method.(21) Database searching yielded 2,547 results with 1,252 left for screening after duplicates were removed.”
MethodCowart, K., Updike, W. H., Lloyd, A., & Bullers, K. (2020) · Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/jcpt.13270 · Cited by 1
Wilson, C., Janes, G., Lawton, R., & Benn, J. J. (2021) · International Journal of Emergency Services · doi:10.1108/ijes-09-2020-0057 · Cited by 2
Correlation of Bibliographic Records for OMNIS Project
Wysota, W., & Trzaska, K. (2021) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-76773-0_47 · Cited by 1
Review of novel therapeutics in cardiac arrest (ReNTICA): systematic review protocol
Murphy, T. W., Snipes, G. M., Chowdhury, M. A. B., et al. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053304 · Cited by 1
Jaworska, N., Moss, S. J., Krewulak, K. D., Stelfox, Z., Niven, D. J., Ismail, Z., Burry, L. D., & Fiest, K. M. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-057585 · Cited by 1
Hoy, S., Helgadóttir, B., & Norman, Å. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph191912726
“We will apply commonly used criteria for psychometric and pragmatic coding, such as validity (face/content, construct, criterion), reliability (internal consistency, test–retest), the PAPERS scale [47], and measurement equivalence (invariance) as defined by Putnick and Bornstein [46]; the results are summarized in Tab…”
MethodApproaches and Barriers to Biomarker Discovery
Lee, T., Finney, E. L., Jha, A., Dorste, A., & Lee, R. E., Jr. (2022) · Urologic Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2022.09.005 · Cited by 1
Genter, J., Croci, E., Ewald, H., et al. (2023) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.72856.3 · Cited by 1
“…be exported to Endnote 20 (Clari-vate Analytics, 2020) and database duplicates removed according to the Bramer method (which includes using customized import/export filters and several rounds of manually changing the deduplication configuration to reduce the risk of false duplicate removal) 15 .”
Mushebenge, A. G.-A., Ugbaja, S. C., Mbatha, N. A., Ghislain, M. R., Muzumbukilwa, T. W., Kadima, M. G., Nlooto, M., & Kumalo, H. M. (2023) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2023.07.28.23293282 · Cited by 1
Lohner, V., Badhwar, A., Detcheverry, F. E., García, C. L., Gellersen, H. M., Khodakarami, Z., Lattmann, R., Li, R., Low, A., Mazo, C., et al. (2024) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2024.12.17.24319166 · Cited by 1
Keen, S., Sall, K., Koczo, A., et al. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.01.03.25319983 · Cited by 1
Ghannad, M., Armond, A. C. V., Ng, J. Y., Khan, H., Giustini, D., Lasinsky, A. M., Sims‐Gould, J., Blazey, P., Martino, N., Nag, S., et al. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.02.03.25320968 · Cited by 1
Self-citationImpact of unit design on intensive care unit clinicians: a scoping review protocol
Fréchette, J., Frati, F. Y. E., Octeau, D., Bitzas, V. B., & Lavoie‐Tremblay, M. (2019) · The JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2017-004007
Supporting Clinical Decision Making in Cancer Care Delivery
Beauchemin, M. (2019) · doi:10.7916/d8-70wy-w603
Fuller, M. (2021) · Queensland University of Technology · doi:10.5204/thesis.eprints.207339
Using Machine Learning to Understand Text for Pharmacovigilance: A Systematic Review
Pilipiec, P. (2021) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)
Kang, H. (2021) · NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives
Empowering older adults through community work: a review of the social work field in the past decade
Wong, K. L. (2020) · Community Development Journal · doi:10.1093/cdj/bsaa064
Reconstruction capsulaire supérieure – revue systématique de la littérature et méta-analyse
Werthel, J.-D., Vigan, M., Schoch, B. S., et al. (2021) · Revue de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique · doi:10.1016/j.rcot.2021.09.024
Frequency of Publication of Dermoscopic Images in Inter-observer Studies: A Systematic Review
Polesie, S., & Zaar, O. (2021) · Acta Dermato Venereologica · doi:10.2340/actadv.v101.865
“A standard method was used to remove duplicates when merging the data-sets obtained from the 3 databases (6).”
MethodК вопросу о сущности международного лоббизма
Михайловна, В. В. (2012) · Власть
Longitudinal Psychological Family Studies in Austria: A Scoping ReviewPreprint
Freischlager, L., Siegel, M., Friedrich, A.-S. E., et al. (2021) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/fcu24
Dufour, I., Bolster‐Foucault, C., Vedel, I., & Quesnel‐Vallée, A. (2022) · Science of Nursing and Health Practices · doi:10.7202/1086404ar
Genter, J., Croci, E., Ewald, H., et al. (2022) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.72856.1
Genter, J., Croci, E., Ewald, H., et al. (2022) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.72856.2
Segur-Ferrer, J., Moltó-Puigmartí, C., Pastells‐Peiró, R., et al. (2022) · doi:10.2196/preprints.39905
Liu, L. L., Skribek, M., Harmenberg, U., et al. (2022) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2022.07.28.22278028
Latt, S. M., Alderdice, F. A., Elkington, M., Shar, M. A., Kurinczuk, J. J., & Rowe, R. E. (2022) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2022.08.24.22279096
“(22) Search results were then imported into Covidence software for screening and 85 data extraction.”
MethodSociomateriality perspectives in interprofessional education and practice: A scoping reviewPreprint
Sy, M., Siongco, K. L. L., Pineda, R. C., Canalita, R., & Xyrichis, A. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2359627/v1
From Alpha to Zeta: A Systematic Review of Zeta Waves
Freund, B. E., Brigham, T. J., Salman, S. D., et al. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology · doi:10.1097/wnp.0000000000000972
Ho, P. T. N., Chen, C., & Tan, E. J. (2023) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2023.01.10.23284251
“Endnote will be utilized to store articles, remove duplicates, and retrieve full texts (8).”
MethodGENETIC RISK FACTOR FOR IDIOPATHIC SCOLIOSIS
Sokolova, I. V., Mustafina, D. A., Sadertdinova, A. G., et al. (2023) · International Journal of Applied and Fundamental Research (Международный журнал прикладных и фундаментальных исследований) · doi:10.17513/mjpfi.13501
McCullin, D. E. (2023) · Expeditions with MCUP · doi:10.36304/expwmcup.2023.04 · Cited by 1
Morrison, N. M. V., Morrison, B. W., & Mahlberg, J. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2749986/v1
Novel Technologies Used in the Assessment of Patellofemoral Pain: A Scoping Review
Arın, G., Bayrakci-Tunay, V., Benedetti, M. G., Leardini, A., Vismara, F., & Belvedere, C. (2023) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app131910825
Unga mäns psykiska ohälsa i Norden
Randell, E. (2023) · TemaNord · doi:10.6027/temanord2023-543
van der Sluys, M.-E. (2023) · doi:10.5463/thesis.462
Young men’s mental ill-health in the Nordics
Randell, E. (2023) · TemaNord · doi:10.6027/temanord2023-549
Alami, A. (2023) · Carleton University's Institutional Repository (MacOdrum Library, Carleton University) · doi:10.22215/etd/2023-15810
Svedin, F., Blomberg, O., Farrand, P. A., Brantnell, A., von Essén, L., Åberg, A. C., & Woodford, J. (2023) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077180 · Cited by 1
Simms-Moore, R., Dures, E. K., Barua, N. U., et al. (2023) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078183
“39 Selection of studies Studies found will then be screened using inclusion and exclusion criteria (table 1).”
MethodEhealth intervention to optimize adherence in late adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes
AlBurno, H. (2023) · Research Publications (Maastricht University) · doi:10.26481/dis.20240118ha
Factors of e-cigarette use among Malaysian adolescents: A systematic review
Eden, V. R., Mustapha, M. S., Jaganathan, S., & Jaafar, H. (2023) · Journal of Health Science Research · doi:10.25259/jhsr_43_2023
The effect of combining antibiotics on resistance: A systematic review and meta-analysisPreprint
Siedentop, B., Kachalov, V. N., Witzany, C., Egger, M., Kouyos, R. D., & Bonhoeffer, S. (2024) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.93740.1
Risk of suicide in patients with thyroid cancer: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Li, C., Zhang, M., Wang, Q., Jiang, K., & Ye, Y. (2024) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080210
“In a first step, deduplication of records will be performed according to the method developed and published by Bramer et al. 35 Then, all titles and abstracts and then full texts will be screened for relevance, and SMRs will be extracted by two reviewers (CL and MMZ) according to the predefined inclusion criteria.”
MethodComparative analysis of early versus late feeding after an EGD-based intervention: meta-analysis
Loganathan, P., Mohan, B. P., Gajendran, M., et al. (2024) · iGIE · doi:10.1016/j.igie.2024.02.003
Family medicine and general practitioner supervisor wellbeing: a literature review
Prentice, S., Mullner, H., Benson, J., & Kay, M. P. (2024) · BJGP Open · doi:10.3399/bjgpo.2023.0230
Broek-Creemers, L. G. U. H., Ort, B. B. A., Vermeulen, H., Pelgrim, T. C., Vloet, L. C. M., & Berben, S. A. A. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.24159247
Broek-Creemers, L. G. U. H., Ort, B. B. A., Vermeulen, H., Pelgrim, T. C., Vloet, L. C. M., & Berben, S. A. A. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.24159250
Broek-Creemers, L. G. U. H., Ort, B. B. A., Vermeulen, H., Pelgrim, T. C., Vloet, L. C. M., & Berben, S. A. A. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.24159259
Broek-Creemers, L. G. U. H., Ort, B. B. A., Vermeulen, H., Pelgrim, T. C., Vloet, L. C. M., & Berben, S. A. A. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.24159256
Lusendi, F. M., Vanherwegen, A.-S., Doggen, K., Nobels, F. R. E., & Matricali, G. A. (2024) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-024-18306-2 · Cited by 1
“Three researchers (FML, KD, SC) independently merged search results and removed duplicates [31–34].”
BackgroundAggarwal, M., Hutchison, B. G., Kokorelias, K. M., Ramsden, V. R., Ivers, N. M., Pinto, A. D., Upshur, R. E. G., Wong, S. T., Pimlott, N., & Slade, S. (2024) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/55860
“The results from all databases will be imported into EndNote (Clarivate Analytics), and all duplicates will be removed [45].”
Bilimsel Araştırma Makalesinde Başlık Seçimi ve Özet Bölümü Yazımı
Kaya, H. D., & Duman, R. (2024) · doi:10.5152/6904
Argut, S. K., & Sayın, İ. (2024) · doi:10.5152/6902
Veer, P. V. D., & Akgül, A. (2024) · doi:10.5152/6901
Klinik Çalışmalarda Örneklem Belirleme Süreci ve Güç Analizi Uygulaması
Boz, C., & Çalgi, B. (2024) · doi:10.5152/6907
Bilimsel Araştırma Makalesi İçin Dergi Seçimi
Tarakçı, E. (2024) · doi:10.5152/6911
Bilimsel Araştırma Makalesinde Bulunması Gereken Standartlar
Doğan, E. N. K., & Birinci, T. (2024) · doi:10.5152/6903
Bilimsel Araştırma ve Yayın Etiği
Altınay, M. (2024) · doi:10.5152/6915
Wu, X., Chen, Y., Lu, Z. Z., Wang, J., & Zou, H. (2024) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081129
Al‐Yateem, N., Ahmed, F. R., & Nejadghaderi, S. A. (2024) · Pediatric Hematology Oncology Journal · doi:10.1016/j.phoj.2024.09.005
Enhancing Replication Research in Developmental Coordination Disorder
Ruddock, S., Petridis, L., & Rahimi‐Golkhandan, S. (2024) · Current Developmental Disorders Reports · doi:10.1007/s40474-024-00310-1
“Duplicates were excluded using EndNote's duplicate identification strategy [67] and then manually reviewed for accuracy in two stages.”
Maruszczak, K., Koren, P., Radzikowski, K., Pixner, T., Suppli, M. P., Albrechtsen, N. J. W., Weghuber, D., & Torbahn, G. (2024) · Life · doi:10.3390/life14101292
“The references were deduplicated according to the proposal of Bramer et al., 2016 [20].”
Methodvan Egmond, J. C., van de Graaf, F. W., Niehot, C. D., et al. (2024) · Acta Orthopaedica Belgica · doi:10.52628/90.2.11791
Borges, G. L. G., Orozco, R., & Salas, B. (2024) · Salud Mental · doi:10.17711/sm.0185-3325.2024.035
“…COVID-19, including depres-Epidemiological Records were retrieved in RIS format for each database and deduplicated in EndNote, used for the systematic removal of duplicate records in seven stages, based on a series of combinations for author, year, title, pages, and volume (Bramer et al., 2016).”
Oosthoek, W. R. W., Cecílio‐Fernandes, D., Engel, M. F. M., van Prooijen, L. T., Otto, S. J., & Woltman, A. M. (2024) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2024.12.09.24318699
“The references were imported into EndNote and duplicates were removed by M.E. using the method as described by Bramer et al. (2016) (37).”
Rethlefsen, M. L. (2024) · Research Publications (Maastricht University) · doi:10.26481/dis.20250121mr
Kaya, S., Walter, C., Khamis, A., et al. (2025) · Dentistry Journal · doi:10.3390/dj13010035
Evidence-based vocational rehabilitation
de Geus, C. J. C. (2025) · doi:10.5463/thesis.917
Non-medicinal oral contrast in upper abdominal MRI for MR-guided radiotherapy: A scoping review
Beasley, M. R., Henry, A. M., Bestall, J., Cosgrove, V. P., Murray, L. J., & Burnett, C. (2025) · Radiography · doi:10.1016/j.radi.2025.01.003
Smith, J., Nagy, P., Tod, D., Holland, C., & Jarvis, H. L. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0318567
Alternative Areas of Chest Compression During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Systematic ReviewPreprint
Pillai, A. A., Marshall, R. A., Loo, J., et al. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5116784
Aytaç, S., Scheinfeld, L., & Tran, C. Y. (2025) · The Reference Librarian · doi:10.1080/02763877.2025.2461780
“Various methods have been recommended for deduplication, such as the Bramer Method (Bramer et al., 2016) and there are a number of bibliographic management tools that can be used to help perform this task.”
Valjee, S. R., Collings, S. J., & Rowlett, D. (2025) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph22030329
“Reports identified through database searches were uploaded to EndNote X9 (Clari‑ vate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA) with duplicates being removed using procedures suggested by Bramer and colleagues [55].”
Tavares, S., Kuhn, I. L., Harrison, M., et al. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.04.08.25325333
The use of extended reality in microsurgical free flap planning – A systematic review
Rasmussen, K., Avnstorp, M. B., Kenney, P. S., et al. (2025) · JPRAS Open · doi:10.1016/j.jpra.2025.04.005
“Subsequently, a de-duplication process was carried out using EndNote 20, following the methodology described by Bramer et al. 16 .”
Konings-Pijnappels, A. P., van der Steen, M. C., Schelven, H. S.-V., Hoogendoorn, I., Vlieland, T. P. M. V., & Janssen, R. P. A. (2025) · Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Open · doi:10.1016/j.ocarto.2025.100617
“The yield of the search was entered into Endnote, whereas duplicates were removed using the Bramer method [23].”
Discharge Transitions for Children with Medical Complexity: A Scoping ReviewPreprint
Moore, E. F., Waldron, M. K., Acorda, D. E., Gallegos, C., Giambra, B. K., Lerret, S. M., Platt, C. R., Sarik, D. A., Sajwani‐Merchant, Z., Kutahyalioglu, N. S., et al. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5247132
Effects of different types of Advance Care Planning workshops: A scoping review protocol
Yang, L., Su, C., Wang, X., Chen, M., & Deng, R. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0322661
“We will use the reference management software EndNote X9 to download abstracts from each database to dedupli-cate search results [32].”
Dorste, A., Jerskey, B. A., & Fogler, J. (2025) · JBI Evidence Synthesis · doi:10.11124/jbies-24-00257
Fober, I., Baran, L. N., Samara, M. T., Siafis, S., Grimes, D. R., & Helfer, B. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0325384
“Search results were pooled and deduplicated using EndNote software, following the Bramer Method [80].”
Akpan, I. S., Ndeh, F. J., Joel, O. C., Akaba, K., Alex, E. C., Ekeagba, I. I., Chidera, O. P., Umah, U. V., Priscillai, U. U., & Chikwesiri, U. P. (2025) · doi:10.38124/ijisrt/25jun405
Tsamoulis, D., Papapanou, M., Platis, D., Giannakas, T., Ktenopoulos, N., & Rallidis, L. S. (2025) · Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy · doi:10.1080/14779072.2025.2522225
“Retrieved records underwent semiauto-matic deduplication using EndNote 20 [17].”
Mendes, J. A., Keegan, T., Jones, L., Atkinson, P. M., & Sedda, L. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-098379
“24 Titles and abstracts of the remaining articles were screened using Rayyan, a research tool to import and manage articles for systematic reviews, 25 and considering the inclusion/exclusion criteria described in the section on material and methods.”
Kasmi, T., Mertens, L., Noortgate, N. V. D., Bekkering, T., Hannes, K., Vermandere, M., Delvaux, N., Bostraeten, P. V., Jaeken, J., & Aertgeerts, B. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5339314
Chandanabhumma, P. P., Toraman, S., Agni, A., Vanderboll, K., & Fàbregues, S. (2025) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/16094069251360322
“…of the articles were downloaded from the fi ve databases, imported into the citation manager EndNote X9 for deduplication using a modi fi ed version of the Bramer method (Bramer et al., 2016), and then imported into the software DistillerSR for literature review management (DistillerSR Inc, 2023).”
Karadavut, B., Smits, I., van Dillen, J., & Hogeveen, M. (2025) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-025-07870-z
“The results were deduplicated according to Bramer et al. [17].”
Yimenu, D. K., Quek, H. W., Rafeld, P., Hareem, A., Gebreyohannes, E. A., Wang, K., Seubert, L., Lee, K., & Page, A. T. (2025) · International Journal of Pharmacy Practice · doi:10.1093/ijpp/riaf060 · Cited by 1
Oosthoek, W. R. W., Cecílio‐Fernandes, D., Engel, M. F. M., van Prooijen, L. T., Otto, S. J., & Woltman, A. M. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-097894 · Cited by 1
“37 Additionally, Covidence identified duplicates that had been inadvertently missed.”
Xiao, Z., Luo, Y., Li, Z., Wang, L., Li, S., Zhou, Z., Nie, T., Hong, W., Wang, S., & Wang, R. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-098711
“36 Subsequently, suitable documents will be initially screened by reading the titles and abstracts, and finally, the full-text articles will be obtained and read to determine the final documents.”
Motahari-Nezhad, H., & CheshmehSohrabi, M. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-7265470/v1
Adaptive Psychosocial Outcomes in Cancer Predisposition Syndromes: A Scoping Review
Hanania, J. W., Tsang, K. K., & Rotman, C. (2025) · Journal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology · doi:10.1177/21565333251366387
Variants of time in bed manipulation therapy for patients with insomnia: A scoping review
Rosén, A., Cassel, M., Stjernberg, J., Stenfalk, J., Blom, K., Tamm, S., Åkerstedt, T., Carlsson, R., & Jernelöv, S. (2025) · Sleep Medicine Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2025.102150
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
