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 201–300 of 1,918
Eikenboom, E. L., Lam, A., Rodríguez‐Girondo, M., van Asperen, C. J., Dinjens, W. N. M., Hofstra, R. M. W., van Leerdam, M. E., Morreau, H. M., Spaander, M. C. W., Wagner, A., et al. (2021) · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2021.04.021 · Cited by 45
“Studies were assessed using Rayyan Intelligent Systematic Review (Cambridge, MA),(17) and duplicates subsequently were removed as described by Bramer et al.(18) Studies were screened independently by 2 authors (E.”
MethodDedeilia, A., Papapanou, M., Παπαδόπουλος, Α., Karela, N.-R., Androutsou, A., Mitsopoulou, D., Nikolakea, M., Konstantinidis, C. I., Papageorgakopoulou, M. A., Sideris, M. C., et al. (2023) · Human Resources for Health · doi:10.1186/s12960-023-00799-4 · Cited by 48
Rondung, E., Massoudi, P., Nieminen, K., Wickberg, B., Peira, N., Silverstein, R. A., Moberg, K., Lundqvist, M., Grundberg, Å., & Hultcrantz, M. (2023) · Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/aogs.14734 · Cited by 61
“32 The detailed search strategy can be found in Table S1.”
BackgroundGroenestein, E., Willemsen, L. M., van Koningsbruggen, G. M., Ket, J. C. F., & Kerkhof, P. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0308643 · Cited by 84
“0.1 (Clarivate tm ), following the Amsterdam Efficient Dedu-plication (AED)-method [19] and the Bramer-method [20].”
InfluentialEconomic evaluations of audit and feedback interventions: a systematic review
Moore, L., Guertin, J. R., Tardif, P.-A., Ivers, N. M., Hoch, J., Conombo, B., Antony, J., Stelfox, H. T., Berthelot, S., Archambault, P., et al. (2022) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2022-014727 · Cited by 33
Veraart, J. K. E., Smith-Apeldoorn, S. Y., Bakker, I. M., Visser, B. A. E., Kamphuis, J., Schoevers, R. A., & Touw, D. J. (2021) · The International Journal of Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1093/ijnp/pyab039 · Cited by 49
COVID‐19‐related oral mucosa lesions among confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 patients: a systematic review
Erbaş, G., Botsalı, A., Erden, N., Arı, C., Taşkın, B., Alper, S., & Vural, S. (2021) · International Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1111/ijd.15889 · Cited by 45
Buergler, S., Sezer, D., Gaab, J., & Locher, C. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-39123-4 · Cited by 46
Efficacy and Safety of Poly-l-Lactic Acid in Facial Aesthetics: A Systematic Review
Signori, R., Barbosa, A. D. P., Cezar-dos-Santos, F., Carbone, A. C., Ventura, S., Nobre, B. B. D. S., Neves, M. L. B. B., Câmara‐Souza, M. B., Poluha, R. L., & Canales, G. D. L. T. (2024) · Polymers · doi:10.3390/polym16182564 · Cited by 67
Utility of Genetic Testing from the Perspective of Parents/Caregivers: A Scoping Review
Hayeems, R. Z., Luca, S., Assamad, D., Bhatt, A., & Ungar, W. J. (2021) · Children · doi:10.3390/children8040259 · Cited by 47
“Duplicate articles were identified and removed using the Bramer method [25].”
Guidance for the Harmonisation and Improvement of Economic Evaluations of Personalised Medicine
Vellekoop, H., Huygens, S. A., Versteegh, M., Szilberhorn, L., Zelei, T., Nagy, B., Koleva‐Kolarova, R., Tsiachristas, A., Wordsworth, S., & Mölken, M. R. (2021) · PharmacoEconomics · doi:10.1007/s40273-021-01010-z · Cited by 45
“A total of 4774 individual studies remained after de-duplication [21], of which 195 were included after full-text screening (Fig.”
BackgroundMorrison, J. M., Hassan, A., Kysh, L., Dudas, R. A., & Russell, C. J. (2022) · Pediatric Pulmonology · doi:10.1002/ppul.25873 · Cited by 44
“On February 13, 2020, all resulting citations were exported into an EndNote X9 library (Clarivate Analytics), and duplicates removed.(10) No additional efforts were conducted to seek out gray literature including study registries, web search engines, websites, or conference proceedings.”
MethodApplication of complexity theory in health and social care research: a scoping review
Carroll, Á. M., Collins, C., McKenzie, J., Stokes, D., & Darley, A. (2023) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069180 · Cited by 46
“26 Studies that sought to describe phenomena related to working environment/context included the processes and development of a dementia network, 27 decision-making processes within an intensive care setting [30] and the context of telenursing as a CAS [20].”
BackgroundState of the Art in Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen–targeted Surgery—A Systematic Review
Berrens, A., Knipper, S., Marra, G., van Leeuwen, P. J., van der Mierden, S., Donswijk, M. L., Maurer, T., van Leeuwen, F. W. B., & van der Poel, H. G. (2023) · European Urology Open Science · doi:10.1016/j.euros.2023.05.014 · Cited by 45
Lai, T.-J., Roxburgh, C. S. D., Boyd, K., & Bouttell, J. (2024) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076750 · Cited by 55
Córdoba-Rodríguez, D. P., Iglesia, I., Gómez‐Bruton, A., Rodrı́guez, G., Casajús, J. A., Morales-Devia, H., & Moreno, L. A. (2022) · BMC Pediatrics · doi:10.1186/s12887-021-03041-z · Cited by 42
“The de-duplication method used is one of the many procedures used by information professionals, being systematic, rigorous, and reproducible Bramer [23].”
MethodBlomstrand, P., Tesan, D., Nylander, E. M., & Ramstrand, N. (2023) · European Review of Aging and Physical Activity · doi:10.1186/s11556-023-00325-4 · Cited by 48
“Publications identified by the search were exported to EndNote where duplicate publications were removed using methods described by Bramer et al. [33].”
MethodAdverse childhood experiences (ACEs), resilience, and outcomes in older adulthood: A scoping review
Haczkewicz, K. M., Shahid, S., Finnegan, H. A., Monnin, C., Cameron, C. D., & Gallant, N. L. (2024) · Child Abuse & Neglect · doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.106864 · Cited by 47
“Following the search, we imported all identified records into EndNote (version x9; Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA) and removed all duplicates (Bramer et al., 2016).”
MethodMeasurement Properties of the Patient Health Questionnaire–15 and Somatic Symptom Scale–8
Hybelius, J., Kosic, A., Salomonsson, S., Wachtler, C., Wallert, J., Nordin, S., & Axelsson, E. (2024) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.46603 · Cited by 49
de Joode, J. W., van Dijk, S. E. M., Walburg, F. S., Bosmans, J. E., van Marwijk, H., de Boer, M. R., van Tulder, M. W., & Adriaanse, M. C. (2019) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0218512 · Cited by 46
Stenseth, H. V., Steindal, S. A., Solberg, M. T., Ølnes, M. A., Mohallem, A. G. D. C., Sørensen, A. L., Strandell‐Laine, C., Olaussen, C., Aure, C. F., Riegel, F., et al. (2022) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/36725 · Cited by 45
“MAØ exported the identified citations into EndNote to remove duplicates using the method described in Bramer et al [42], and the citations were then exported to the web application Rayyan for storage, organization, and blinding of the study selection process.”
MethodVerrest, L., Wilthagen, E. A., Beijnen, J. H., Huitema, A. D. R., & Dorlo, T. P. C. (2021) · Clinical Pharmacokinetics · doi:10.1007/s40262-021-01031-z · Cited by 46
Bring, A., Thorslund, J., Rosén, L., Tonderski, K. S., Åberg, C., Envall, I., & Laudon, H. (2022) · Environmental Evidence · doi:10.1186/s13750-022-00289-5 · Cited by 39
“Duplicates were removed using the de-duplication method described in [32] and [33], the latter for the updated searches.”
Park, B., Bhat, S., Xia, W., Barazanchi, A. W. H., FRAMPTON, C. M. A., Hill, A. G., & MacCormick, A. D. (2023) · BJS Open · doi:10.1093/bjsopen/zrad065 · Cited by 53
“Records were exported into EndNote X9 (Clarivate, Philadelphia, PA, USA), with duplicates being excluded via the methods of Bramer et al.(17).”
MethodTung, I., Hipwell, A. E., Grosse, P. J., Battaglia, L. P., Cannova, E., English, G. E., Quick, A. D., Llamas, B., Taylor, M., & Foust, J. E. (2023) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000407 · Cited by 55
Acker, J. W. G. V., Pauwels, N., Cauwels, R. G. E. C., & Rajasekharan, S. (2020) · European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry · doi:10.1007/s40368-020-00544-8 · Cited by 42
de Boer, D. R., Hoekstra, F., Huetink, K. I. M., Hoekstra, T., Krops, L. A., & Hettinga, F. J. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18126342 · Cited by 46
“[30] were followed to remove duplicates.”
Exercise interventions for low back pain are poorly reported: a systematic review
Davidson, S. R. E., Kamper, S. J., Haskins, R., Robson, E. K., Gleadhill, C., da Silva, P. V., Williams, A. J., Yu, Z., & Williams, C. M. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.020 · Cited by 41
Psychological and social consequences of non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT): a scoping review
Labonté, V., Alsaid, D., Lang, B., & Meerpohl, J. J. (2019) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-019-2518-x · Cited by 39
Epure, A. M., Leyvraz, M., Anker, D., Bernardo, S. D., da Costa, B. R., Chioléro, A., & Sekarski, N. (2020) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003414 · Cited by 47
“1, Clarivate Analytics, London, United Kingdom), and duplicates were removed according to the method of Bramer and colleagues [27].”
MethodMiller, K. A., Baird, J. D., Lira, J., Eguizabal, J. H., Fei, S., Kysh, L., & Lotstein, D. S. (2020) · Journal of Pain and Symptom Management · doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.12.004 · Cited by 41
Social connection and physical health outcomes among long-term care home residents: a scoping review
Lem, K., McGilton, K. S., Aelick, K., Iaboni, A., Babineau, J., Colborne, D. H., Edwards, C., Bretzlaff, M., Lender, D., Gibson, J., et al. (2021) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-021-02638-4 · Cited by 47
“org) and Endnote were used for the review process and deduplication of database results [39].”
MethodChoukou, M.-A., Olatoye, F. S., Urbanowski, R., Caon, M., & Monnin, C. (2022) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/40330 · Cited by 43
“All records were exported to EndNote (version X9; Clarivate), and duplicates were removed [29].”
Kuckuck, S., Lengton, R., Boon, M., Boersma, E., Penninx, B., Kavousi, M., & van Rossum, E. V. (2023) · Journal of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/joim.13739 · Cited by 34
“References were imported into Endnote and duplicates removed prior to screening by the medical librarian [16].”
MethodSterpu, I., Herling, L., Nordquist, J., et al. (2024) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-023-04975-x · Cited by 41
“Subsequently, duplicates were removed using the method described by Bramer et al. [23].”
MethodLing, S., Mangaoil, R. A., Cleverley, K., Sproule, B. A., & Puts, M. T. E. (2019) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.02.007 · Cited by 41
Imaging of the Lymphatic Vessels for Surgical Planning: A Systematic Review
van Heumen, S., Riksen, J. J. M., Bramer, W. M., van Soest, G., & Vasilic, D. (2022) · Annals of Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1245/s10434-022-12552-7 · Cited by 46
“The search results of all databases were imported in EndNote and deduplicated using the method described by Bramer et al.(20) Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria”
MethodSelf-citationPatient-Reported Morbidity Instruments: A Systematic Review
Oemrawsingh, A., Swami, N. S., Valderas, J. M., Hazelzet, J. A., Pusic, A. L., Gliklich, R. E., & Bergmark, R. W. (2020) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2020.02.006 · Cited by 40
Sensory nerve regeneration and reinnervation in muscle following peripheral nerve injury
Adidharma, W., Khouri, A. N., Lee, J. C., Vanderboll, K., Kung, T. A., Cederna, P. S., & Kemp, S. W. P. (2022) · Muscle & Nerve · doi:10.1002/mus.27661 · Cited by 43
“Duplicates were removed in EndNote X9 (Clarivate) using a modified version of the Bramer method.(6)”
MethodMohan, B. P., Madhu, D., Reddy, N., Chara, B. S., Khan, S. R., Garg, G., Kassab, L. L., Muthusamy, A. K., Singh, A. D., Chandan, S., et al. (2022) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2022.07.026 · Cited by 42
Reyes, S. M., Brockway, M. L., McDermid, J. M., Chan, D., Granger, M. J., Refvik, R., Sidhu, K. K., Musse, S., Monnin, C., Lotoski, L. C., et al. (2023) · Advances in Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.advnut.2023.06.005 · Cited by 40
Kokorelias, K. M., Grosse, A., Zhabokritsky, A., & Sirisegaram, L. (2023) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-023-04114-7 · Cited by 42
“Forward and backward searching were conducted on the final full-text articles to ensure a broad search using EndNote and Citationchaser [53, 54].”
MethodInfluentialMartins, J. F. B., Georgiou, A. C., Diogo, P., de Vries, R., Freixo, V., Palma, P., & Shemesh, H. (2025) · Journal of Endodontics · doi:10.1016/j.joen.2025.03.004 · Cited by 45
Hokken, M. J., Krabbendam, E., van der Zee, Y. J., & Kooiker, M. J. G. (2022) · Child Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/09297049.2022.2057940 · Cited by 39
“The references were imported into EndNote and duplicates were removed by the medical information specialist using the method as described by Bramer et al. (2016) Two reviewers (M.J. Hokken and Dr. M.J.G. Kooiker) independently screened titles and abstracts in EndNote using the method as described…”
MethodJoseph, H. M., Lorenzo, N. E., Fisher, N., Novick, D. R., Gibson, C., Rothenberger, S. D., Foust, J. E., & Chronis-Tuscano, A. M. (2023) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/jcpp.13753 · Cited by 51
Christidis, N., Al‐Moraissi, E. A., Barjandi, G., Svedenlöf, J., Jasim, H., Christidis, M., & Collin, M. (2023) · Drugs · doi:10.1007/s40265-023-01971-9 · Cited by 44
“Finally, de-duplication was performed with the method presented by Bramer et al. in 2016 [36].”
One hundred years of zoonoses research in the Horn of Africa: A scoping review
Cavalerie, L., Wardeh, M., Lebrasseur, O., Nanyingi, M. O., McIntyre, K. M., Kaba, M., Asrat, D., Christley, R., Pinchbeck, G. L., Baylis, M., et al. (2021) · PLoS neglected tropical diseases · doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0009607 · Cited by 37
“0.1 (Clavariate Analytics, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009607 July 16, 2021 4 / 23 Philadelphia) [34], combined into one library and scanned for duplicates using methods described by Bramer et al [35].”
MethodInfluentialDamoiseaux‐Volman, B. A., van der Velde, N., Ruige, S. G., Romijn, J. A., Abu–Hanna, A., & Medlock, S. K. (2021) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/28023 · Cited by 42
“Duplicates in the search were detected and deleted in EndNote X9 (Clarivate Analytics), 2019 [15].”
BackgroundWidbiller, M., Knüttel, H., Meschi, N., & Durán‐Sindreu, F. (2022) · International Endodontic Journal · doi:10.1111/iej.13784 · Cited by 40
“3.3) reference management software for deduplication following the method by Bramer et al. (Bramer et al., 2016).”
MethodInfluentialLoneliness 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., Rosen, T., Braehler, E., & Beutel, M. E. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/wjx5v · Cited by 584
Fujioka, J. K., Budhwani, S., Thomas-Jacques, T., De Vera, K., Challa, P., Fuller, K., Hogeveen, S., Gordon, D., Shahid, S., Seto, E., et al. (2020) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/22847 · Cited by 34
“Citations were exported from the databases into EndNote X9 (Clarivate Analytics) for deduplication using a deduplication methodology adapted from Bramer et al [28].”
MethodClinical decision support for therapeutic decision-making in cancer: a systematic review
Beauchemin, M., Murray, M. T., Sung, L., Hershman, D. L., Weng, C., & Schnall, R. (2019) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.07.019 · Cited by 38
“Screening, abstraction, appraisal and analysis All eligible studies were entered into an EndNote database and then de-duplicated using the Bramer Method [26].”
MethodThe effect of chronic low back pain on postural control during quiet standing: A meta-analysis
Park, J., Nguyen, V. Q., Ho, R. L. M., & Coombes, S. A. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-34692-w · Cited by 41
Beyer, K., Leenen, R. C. A., Venderbos, L. D. F., et al. (2024) · Journal of Personalized Medicine · doi:10.3390/jpm14010084 · Cited by 38
“To design the search strategy and identify studies, we worked with an information scientist from the Erasmus MC Medical library (WB), who also removed duplicates using the method by Bramer et al. in EndNote [14].”
MethodSelf-citationSingh, R., Goldberg, J., Varghese, A. M., Yu, K. H., Park, W., & O'Reilly, E. M. (2019) · Cancer Treatment Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2019.03.003 · Cited by 38
“All search results were saved to a citation management tool (EndNote), and the Bramer Method was used to remove duplicates[20].”
MethodAyaz, B., Martimianakis, M. A., Muntaner, C., et al. (2021) · Human Resources for Health · doi:10.1186/s12960-021-00635-7 · Cited by 38
Khamees, D., Peterson, W., Patrício, M., Pawlikowska, T. R. B., Commissaris, C. V., Austin, A. L., Davis, M. G., Spadafore, M., Griffith, M., Hider, A. M., et al. (2022) · Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) · Cited by 38
Do women and men use language differently in spoken face-to-face interaction?: A scoping review
Ilona Plug, I. P., Wyke Stommel, W. S., Peter Lucassen, P. L., Tim Olde Hartman, T. O. H., Sandra Van Dulmen, S. V. D., & Enny Das, E. D. (2020) · Review of Communication Research · doi:10.12840/issn.2255-4165.026 · Cited by 37
Machine learning techniques for the automation of literature reviews and systematic reviews in EFSA
Jaspers, S., De Troyer, E., & Aerts, M. (2018) · EFSA Supporting Publications · doi:10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.en-1427 · Cited by 36
dos Santos, R. B., Fiedler, A., Badwal, A., Legasto-Mulvale, J. M., Sibley, K. M., Olaleye, O. A., Diermayr, G., & Salbach, N. M. (2023) · Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences · doi:10.3389/fresc.2023.1084085 · Cited by 39
Johansson, M., Romero, D., Jakobson, M., Heinemans, N., & Lindner, P. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1233888 · Cited by 49
Canales, G. D. L. T., Câmara‐Souza, M. B., Ernberg, M. M., Al‐Moraissi, E. A., Grigoriadis, A., Poluha, R. L., Christidis, M., Jasim, H., Lövgren, A., & Christidis, N. (2024) · Drugs · doi:10.1007/s40265-024-02048-x · Cited by 39
“To eliminate duplicates, the method outlined by Bramer et al. was utilized [39].”
MethodTreble‐Barna, A., Heinsberg, L. W., Stec, Z., Breazeale, S., Davis, T. S., Kesbhat, A., Chattopadhyay, A., VonVille, H. M., Ketchum, A., Yeates, K. O., et al. (2022) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105078 · Cited by 37
Cowart, K., Updike, W., & Bullers, K. (2020) · Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1089/dia.2019.0345 · Cited by 36
“Results were exported to EndNote and deduplicated first using the deduplication process developed by Bramer et al. 12”
A call for clinical trial globalization in Alzheimer's disease and related dementia
Llibre‐Guerra, J. J., Heavener, A., Brucki, S. M. D., Marante, J. P. D., Pintado‐Caipa, M., Chen, Y., Behrens, M. I., Hardi, A., Admirall‐Sanchez, A., Akinyemi, R., et al. (2023) · Alzheimer's & Dementia · doi:10.1002/alz.12995 · Cited by 37
Hair, K., Bahor, Z., Macleod, M., Liao, J., & Sena, E. S. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.05.04.442412 · Cited by 103
A Systematic Review of the Validity and Reliability of the Patient-Determined Disease Steps Scale
Marrie, R. A., Mcfadyen, C., Yaeger, L., & Salter, A. R. (2022) · International Journal of MS Care · doi:10.7224/1537-2073.2021-102 · Cited by 39
A systematic review of remotely delivered contingency management treatment for substance use
Coughlin, L. N., Salino, S., Jennings, C., Lacek, M., Townsend, W. A., Koffarnus, M. N., & Bonar, E. E. (2023) · Journal of Substance Use and Addiction Treatment · doi:10.1016/j.josat.2023.208977 · Cited by 37
Evidence on Scaling in Health and Social Care: An Umbrella Review
Corôa, R. D. C., Gogovor, A., Charif, A. B., Hassine, A. B., Zomahoun, H. T. V., McLean, R. K. D., Milat, A., Plourde, K. V., Rhéault, N., Wolfenden, L., et al. (2023) · Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12649 · Cited by 40
Munce, S., Gray, C. S., Pomeroy, B. C., Bayley, M. T., Kokorelias, K. M., Luong, D., Biddiss, E. A., Cave, T., Bragge, P., Chew-Graham, C. A., et al. (2023) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/50463 · Cited by 41
Pharmacists’ impact on older adults’ access to vaccines in the United States
Newlon, J. L., Kadakia, N. N., Reed, J. B., & Plake, K. S. I. (2020) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.01.061 · Cited by 36
Somatosensory deficits and neural correlates in cerebral palsy: a scoping review
Brun, C., Traverse, É., Granger, É., & Mercier, C. (2021) · Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology · doi:10.1111/dmcn.14963 · Cited by 35
“Duplicates were removed by the librarian using EndNote (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA) according to the deduplication method suggested by Bramer et al.23 Search results were exported to Covidence (https:// www.covidence.org/), an online program optimized for review management.”
MethodThe applications of ultrasound, and ultrasonography in dentistry: a scoping review of the literature
Elbarbary, M., Sgro, A., Khazaei, S., et al. (2022) · Clinical Oral Investigations · doi:10.1007/s00784-021-04340-6 · Cited by 36
Issa, J., Olszewski, R., & Dyszkiewicz-Konwińska, M. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19010560 · Cited by 39
Reuvers, M. J. P., Gedik, A., Way, K. M., de Stadt, S. M. E.-V., van der Graaf, W. T. A., & Husson, O. (2023) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers15123263 · Cited by 35
“The results were deduplicated using EndNote, first based on the PMIDs and then by following steps A through D of the Bramer dedup method [16].”
MethodSpringborg, A. H., Visby, L., Kehlet, H., & Foss, N. B. (2023) · Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/aas.14301 · Cited by 41
Cultural diversity in health care teams: A systematic integrative review and research agenda
Schmidt, M., Steigenberger, N., Berndtzon, M., & Umans, T. (2023) · Health Care Management Review · doi:10.1097/hmr.0000000000000379 · Cited by 46
Forty years in the making: A systematic review of the megatrends literature
Naughtin, C. K., Schleiger, E., Bratanova, A., Terhorst, A., & Hajkowicz, S. A. (2024) · Futures · doi:10.1016/j.futures.2024.103329 · Cited by 49
Patterns of multimorbidity in primary care electronic health records: A systematic review
Beridze, G., Abbadi, A., Ars, J., Remelli, F., Vetrano, D. L., Trevisan, C., Pérez, L. M., López-Rodríguez, J. A., & Calderón‐Larrañaga, A. (2024) · Journal of Multimorbidity and Comorbidity · doi:10.1177/26335565231223350 · Cited by 39
Identifying stigmatizing language in clinical documentation: A scoping review of emerging literature
Barcelona, V., Scharp, D., Idnay, B., Moen, H., Cato, K., & Topaz, M. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0303653 · Cited by 45
“The results for each search were uploaded into EndNote X9 software, de-duplicated using the Bramer method [17], and then exported to Covidence software for title and abstract screening.”
MethodFong, Z. H., Tan, S. H., Mahendran, R., Kua, E. H., & Chee, T. T. (2020) · Aging & Mental Health · doi:10.1080/13607863.2020.1786802 · Cited by 41
Nurses' knowledge on routine care and maintenance of adult vascular access devices: A scoping review
Raynak, A., Paquet, F., Marchionni, C., Lok, V., Gauthier, M., & Frati, F. Y. E. (2020) · Journal of Clinical Nursing · doi:10.1111/jocn.15419 · Cited by 40
Soykan, E. A., Aarts, B. M., López‐Yurda, M., Kuhlmann, K. F. D., Erdmann, J. I., Kok, N. F. M., van Lienden, K. P., Wilthagen, E. A., Beets‐Tan, R. G. H., van Delden, O. M., et al. (2021) · CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology · doi:10.1007/s00270-021-02877-3 · Cited by 35
“Articles were electronically downloaded into reference management software (Rayyan QCRI and EndNote X7) and duplicated articles were electronically or manually excluded using the Bramer method [7].”
MethodCost of treating metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review
Bhimani, N., Wong, G. Y. M., Molloy, C., et al. (2022) · Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2022.06.022 · Cited by 35
Kaiser, R., Kantorová, L., Langaufová, A., Slezáková, S., Tučková, D., Klugar, M., Klézl, Z., Barša, P., Cienciala, J., Hajdúk, R., et al. (2023) · Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp-2022-330158 · Cited by 35
How to Conduct a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: A Guide for Clinicians
Zaccagnini, M., & Li, J. (2023) · Respiratory Care · doi:10.4187/respcare.10971 · Cited by 43
“55,56 A minimum of 2 team members should independently screen all titles and abstracts of the papers to determine if they meet the inclusion criteria aligned with the original research question.”
Gustavsson, K., van Diepen, C., Fors, A., Axelsson, M., Bertilsson, M., & Hensing, G. K. E. (2023) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071178 · Cited by 36
Latt, S. M., Alderdice, F. A., Elkington, M., Shar, M. A., Kurinczuk, J. J., & Rowe, R. E. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0274041 · Cited by 34
“Search results were imported into the reference management software Endnote and duplicates were removed [33].”
MethodEfficacy of different surgical treatments for management of anal fistula: a network meta-analysis
Bhat, S., Xu, W., Varghese, C., Dubey, N., Wells, C. I., Harmston, C., O’Grady, G., Bissett, I. P., & Lin, A. Y. (2023) · Techniques in Coloproctology · doi:10.1007/s10151-023-02845-8 · Cited by 38
Wells, C. I., Bhat, S., Xu, W., Varghese, C., Keane, C., Baraza, W., O’Grady, G., Harmston, C., & Bissett, I. P. (2024) · Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.surg.2023.12.006 · Cited by 39
Biga, R., Nottebaum, S., Kozlakidis, Z., & Psomiadis, S. (2024) · Sustainable development goals series · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-62332-5_18 · Cited by 38
Healthcare worker practices for HPV vaccine recommendation: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bakare, D., Gobbo, E., Akinsola, K. O., Bakare, A. A., Salako, J., Hanson, C., van Wees, S. H., Falade, A. G., & King, C. (2024) · Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · doi:10.1080/21645515.2024.2402122 · Cited by 38
“A de-duplication process was done using the method described by Bramer et al. (2016) and DOIs were compared to avoid duplicate articles.”
MethodThoonen, K., van Osch, L., de Vries, H., Jongen, S., & Schneider, F. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17020529 · Cited by 41
“After eliminating duplicate studies according to the method described by Bramer and colleagues [43], title selection of the studies took place by the first (KT) and last (FS) author in the first round.”
MethodMaughan, B. C., Frueh, L., McDonagh, M. S., Casciere, B., & Kline, J. A. (2020) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1111/acem.14108 · Cited by 36
“Figure 1 shows the PRISMA flow diagram of our literature search.36 We initially retrieved 6,818 articles, which were reduced to 4,018 after deduplication in EndNote X9.”
MethodDióxido de cloro y derivados del cloro para prevenir o tratar la COVID-19: revisión sistemática
Burela, P. A., Hernández‐Vásquez, A., Comandé, D., et al. (2020) · Revista Peruana de Medicina Experimental y Salud Pública · doi:10.17843/rpmesp.2020.374.6330 · Cited by 34
Hirt, J., Nordhausen, T., Appenzeller‐Herzog, C., & Ewald, H. (2020) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.27337.1 · Cited by 35
McBain, K., Habib, R., Laggis, G., Quaiattini, A., Ventura, N. M., & Noël, G. P. J. C. (2021) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.2155 · Cited by 35
“An initial deduplication of records was conducted in EndNote reference management software (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA) using the sensitive Bramer et al. (2016) method of deduplication; n = 3185 duplicates were removed.”
MethodVercoulen, T. F. G., Doodkorte, R., Roth, A. K., et al. (2021) · Global Spine Journal · doi:10.1177/21925682211034500 · Cited by 34
“Duplicates were removed using the Bramer method in EndNoteX8.”
MethodFiest, K. M., Krewulak, K. D., Brundin‐Mather, R., Leia, M. P., Fox‐Robichaud, A., Lamontagne, F., Leigh, J. P., & Canada, F. S. (2022) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000005564 · Cited by 39
“Results were combined and deduplicated in EndNote X9 (Clarivate Analysis) (22) and uploaded to Covidence systematic review software (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, VIC, Australia) for title/abstract and full-text review.”
MethodFàbregues, S., Mumbardó‐Adam, C., Escalante‐Barrios, E. L., Hong, Q. N., Edelstein, D., Vanderboll, K., & Fetters, M. D. (2022) · Research in Developmental Disabilities · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2022.104239 · Cited by 34
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
