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 1,901–1,918 of 1,918
Gadelmawla, A. F., Elnaga, A. A. A., Albukhari, A. F., Almutairi, R. B., Alamri, B., Alhuways, S. M., Althaher, F., Aloufi, F., Alotaibi, A. M. A., Alali, A., et al. (2026) · Future Oncology · doi:10.1080/14796694.2026.2730089
Rivero, C. A. A., Gutierrez-Severino, A., Zevallos, M. A. F., et al. (2026) · Aquaculture Journal · doi:10.3390/aquacj6030043
A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for suicide and self-harm prevention in adults
Flygare, O., Diest, A. P.-V., Dymbe, K. J., Siqveland, J., Bhargav, M., Fernández, M. L., Runeson, B., Qin, P., Alonso, J., Arensman, E., et al. (2026) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2026.117465
Netshiombo, M., Fernandes, Ó. B., Ket, H., et al. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2026-119188
Reissis, Y., Miller, B., Friebel, R., et al. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2026-122056
Bruk av munnbind ved invasive inngrep
Steen, K., Bergh, T. H., Lein, R. K., et al. (2026) · Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening · doi:10.4045/tidsskr.25.0538
Jantzen, E., Quiambao, J. A., LeBlanc, D., Cernat, A., Calleja, S., Tinmouth, J., Lofters, A., & Ruco, A. (2026) · Cancer Control · doi:10.1177/10732748261491707
Al-Qurain, A. A., Abdelrahman, A., Alzahib, I. H., Alsinan, Z. A., Edrissy, A. A., Alkhalil, A. O., Jamor, O. A., AlAhmari, Y. A., Almohmmadi, O. A., Alrehaili, A. A., et al. (2026) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.116820
Yates, S., Hatton, K., & Murray, C. D. (2026) · Psychology Health & Medicine · doi:10.1080/13548506.2026.2737835 · Cited by 1
Zadeh, S. M. M., Kalantari, S., Dastgerdi, S. S., et al. (2026) · Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine · doi:10.1111/jcmm.71358
Li, Z., Wang, X., Li, R., et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2026.1946189
Machesney, A. O., Lock, K., Hamilton, C., et al. (2026) · Paediatric Respiratory Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.prrv.2026.09.008
Ying, L., Guo, Y., Wang, Q., et al. (2026) · Gastroenterology & Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gande.2026.09.004
LEWIS, S. C., Xu, W., Varghese, C., et al. (2026) · Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.surg.2026.110703
Beyond Grief: A Meta-Ethnographic Synthesis of Healing After Traumatic Loss
Šinko, L., Þorvaldsdóttir, K. B., Malik, R., Shimoyama, Y., Hori, S., Tokumura, A., Simeral, S., Nace, T., Izzo, K. L., & Ikeda, M. (2026) · Trauma Violence & Abuse · doi:10.1177/15248380261464617
Limaheluw, J., Niese, R., Schram-Bijkerk, D., Hall, L. F., de Kraker, J., Oostdijk, S. C. J., Serafim, F., & Husman, A. M. D. R. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-108532
Livet, A., Yunus, F. M., Goalec, N. C., & Lecomte, T. (2026) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2026.117502
Skeie, M. S., Klock, K. S., Dahllöf, G., Høvik, H., Sletten, I. S. K., Fagerhaug, T. N., & Sen, A. (2026) · Acta Odontologica Scandinavica · doi:10.2340/aos.v85.46953
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
