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 501–600 of 1,918
How is Telehealth Used to Increase Access to Specialty Palliative Care? A Systematic Review
Hutchinson, R. N., Chiu, E. J., Belin, S. C., Klein‐Fedyshin, M., Impagliazzo, C., Costanza, L., Passarelli, J., Patel, P. P., Sahay, S., Shen, A. E., et al. (2025) · Journal of Pain and Symptom Management · doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2024.12.017 · Cited by 22
Systematic review of machine learning applications using nonoptical motion tracking in surgery
Carciumaru, T. Z., Tang, C. M., Farsi, M., Bramer, W. M., Dankelman, J., Raman, C., Dirven, C. M. F., Gholinejad, M., & Vasilic, D. (2025) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01412-1 · Cited by 22
Self-citationMalkowski, O. S., Harvey, J., Townsend, N. P., Kelson, M. J., Foster, C. E., & Western, M. J. (2025) · International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity · doi:10.1186/s12966-025-01753-4 · Cited by 22
“We checked for additional duplicate records using EndNote, following the method outlined by Bramer and colleagues [24], and manually marked newly identified duplicates within Covidence.”
Low-Value Clinical Practices in Adult Traumatic Brain Injury: An Umbrella Review
Moore, L., Tardif, P., Lauzier, F., Berube, M., Archambault, P. M., Lamontagne, F., Chassé, M., Stelfox, H. T., Gabbe, B. J., Lecky, F. E., et al. (2020) · Journal of Neurotrauma · doi:10.1089/neu.2020.7044 · Cited by 19
“We identified and removed duplicates using electronic and manual screening.[36] To ensure reliability when selecting studies for a given practice, two sets of 100 citations were independently evaluated and then discussed by the reviewers.”
Milligan, C., & Berta, W. B. (2021) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-021-06640-9 · Cited by 23
Bullert, A. J., Doorn, J. A., Stevens, H. E., et al. (2021) · Chemical Research in Toxicology · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrestox.1c00226 · Cited by 19
Developmental delay in infants and toddlers with sickle cell disease: a systematic review
Hoyt, C. R., Varughese, T. E., Erickson, J., Haffner, N., Luo, L., L’Hotta, A. J., Yaeger, L., & King, A. A. (2021) · Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology · doi:10.1111/dmcn.15048 · Cited by 19
“RESULTS Study selection A total of 3573 results were found and exported to Endnote; 1025 duplicate records were deleted, resulting in a total of 2548 unique citations included in the project library.(35) Following title review, 173 articles were identified for abstract review.”
BackgroundDrepper, B., Bamps, B., Gobin, A., & Orshoven, J. V. (2021) · Environmental Evidence · doi:10.1186/s13750-021-00247-7 · Cited by 21
“Firstly, all search results will be collected and duplicates removed using Endnote Desktop software [28] following the methodology by Bramer et al. [29].”
MethodPatient-reported outcome measures for medication-related quality of life: A scoping review
James, K. A., Cadel, L., Hitzig, S. L., & Guilcher, S. J. T. (2022) · Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy · doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2022.03.003 · Cited by 19
Mouthrinses and SARS-CoV-2 viral load in saliva: a living systematic review
Hernández‐Vásquez, A., Barrenechea-Pulache, A., Comandé, D., et al. (2022) · Evidence-Based Dentistry · doi:10.1038/s41432-022-0253-z · Cited by 19
Joseph, R., Hart, N. H., Bradford, N., Agbejule, O. A., Koczwara, B., Chan, A., Wallen, M. P., & Chan, R. J. (2022) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-022-07152-w · Cited by 19
Sherif, R. E., Pluye, P., & Ibekwe-Sanjuan, F. (2022) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/34345 · Cited by 19
“All the records were transferred to a reference manager software (EndNote x8) and duplicates were removed using the Bramer method [43].”
MethodSiristatidis, C. S., Papapanou, M., Karageorgiou, V., Martins, W. P., Bellos, I., Teixeira, D. M., & Vlahos, N. (2022) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.26019 · Cited by 19
Cadel, L., Kuluski, K., Wodchis, W. P., Thavorn, K., & Guilcher, S. J. T. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0273038 · Cited by 20
“All articles from the database searches were imported into EndNote X8, and duplicates were removed following Bramer’s method for de-duplication [39].”
MethodLinz, V. C., Löwe, A., van der Ven, J., Hasenburg, A., & Battista, M. J. (2022) · Frontiers in Oncology · doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.951292 · Cited by 19
“Ricciardi 2017 (29) 7 Surgical staging (4): laparoscopic HE, OE, random peritoneal biopsies and peritoneal washing: No malignancies ND (7) 30 (9-84) NED (7)”
BackgroundMethodHalim, A. F. N. A., Ahmad, D., Ling, M. Y. J., Masdor, N. A., Ramly, N., Othman, R., Kandayah, T., Hassan, M. R., & Dapari, R. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph191912971 · Cited by 25
Marshall, P., Sansom, K., Jagfeld, G., Jones, S. H., & Lobban, F. A. (2023) · Psychology and Psychotherapy Theory Research and Practice · doi:10.1111/papt.12449 · Cited by 23
“Database search results were deduplicated using Endnote (Bramer et al., 2016).”
MethodAccess to Healthcare Among US Adult Refugees: A Systematic Qualitative Review
Ho, C. H., Denton, A. H., Blackstone, S. R., Saif, N. T., MacIntyre, K., Ozkaynak, M., Valdez, R. S., & Hauck, F. R. (2023) · Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health · doi:10.1007/s10903-023-01477-2 · Cited by 19
“2), and de-duplicated [28].”
The leishmaniases in Kenya: A scoping review
Grifferty, G., Shirley, H., O’Brien, K., et al. (2023) · PLoS neglected tropical diseases · doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0011358 · Cited by 19
Engel, M., Brouwer, M. A., Jansen, N., Leget, C. J. W., Teunissen, S. C. C. M., & Kars, M. C. (2023) · Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1177/02692163231186173 · Cited by 19
“31 The title and abstract screening and the follow-up screening based on the full articles were performed by two researchers (ME, NJ) and four researchers (ME, NJ, MB, MK) respectively.”
MethodBrown, J. A., Capper, T. S., Hegney, D. G., Donovan, H., Williamson, M. J., Calleja, P., Solomons, T., & Wilson, S. (2023) · JBI Evidence Synthesis · doi:10.11124/jbies-22-00367 · Cited by 19
Martella, A. M., Martella, R. C., Yatcilla, J., Newson, A., Shannon, E. N., & Voorhis, C. (2023) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-023-09826-1 · Cited by 25
“After duplicate records were removed using an iterative procedure outlined in Bramer et al. (2016), article citations and abstracts were uploaded into a project on the systematic review screening platform Rayyan (rayyan.ai).”
MethodTang, Y. H., van Bakelen, N. B., Gareb, B., & Spijkervet, F. K. L. (2024) · International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2024.01.006 · Cited by 23
Oldfrey, B. M., Ramírez, D. Z. M., Miodownik, M. A., et al. (2024) · Prosthetics and Orthotics International · doi:10.1097/pxr.0000000000000351 · Cited by 19
Campisi, S. C., Zasowski, C., Shah, S., Shah, A., Bradley-Ridout, G., Korczak, D. J., & Szatmári, P. (2020) · Advances in Nutrition · doi:10.1093/advances/nmaa021 · Cited by 19
Singh‐Franco, D., Moreau, C. S., Levin, A., Rosa, D. D. L., & Johnson, M. (2020) · Clinical Therapeutics · doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.06.024 · Cited by 18
Semi-automated Tools for Systematic Searches
Adam, G. P., Wallace, B. C., & Trikalinos, T. A. (2022) · Methods in Molecular Biology · doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-1566-9_2 · Cited by 19
Ghandour, M. A., Lehner, B., Klotz, M. C. M., Geisbüsch, A., Bollmann, J., Renkawitz, T. F., & Horsch, A. K. (2022) · Children · doi:10.3390/children9121859 · Cited by 24
“Screening and Study Selection Following the retrieval of records through the database search [28], the references were imported to EndNote (Version 8) for duplicate removal and to organize the screening sheet [29].”
MethodFuller, M., Moyle, G., Hunt, A. P., et al. (2020) · Physical Therapy in Sport · doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2020.03.010 · Cited by 19
Regulation of long-term care for older persons: a scoping review of empirical research
Pot, A. M., de Kok, J. L., Schoonmade, L. J., & Bal, R. A. (2023) · International Psychogeriatrics · doi:10.1017/s1041610223000704 · Cited by 19
“4 (Clarivate ™ ), following the AED method and the Bramer method (Bramer et al ., 2016).”
MethodMacKay, L. J., Chang, U., Kreiter, E., Nickel, E., Kamke, J., Bahia, R., Shantz, S., & Meyerhoff, H. (2024) · Journal of Pediatric Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2024.05.030 · Cited by 20
The association between infant sleep, cognitive, and psychomotor development: a systematic review
Butler, B., Burdayron, R., Goder, G. M., Lewis, C., Vendette, M., Khoury, B., & Pennestri, M. (2024) · SLEEP · doi:10.1093/sleep/zsae174 · Cited by 21
“All results were imported into EndNote and duplicate records were discarded using the de-duplicate method developed by Bramer et al. [37].”
MethodGozzi, P., Persson, M., Nielsen, A. M., Kilander, H., Kågesten, A., Iwarsson, K. E., Ljungcrantz, D., Bredell, M., & Larsson, E. C. (2024) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-024-19778-y · Cited by 18
Circadian realignment and depressed mood: A systematic review
Wescott, D. L., Hasler, B. P., Foust, J. E., & Roecklein, K. A. (2024) · Sleep Medicine Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.smrv.2024.102022 · Cited by 22
Daqiq, O., Gareb, B., Spijkervet, F. K. L., et al. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-03959-9 · Cited by 18
Chatzigeorgiou, C., Christou, E., & Simeli, I. (2025) · Administrative Sciences · doi:10.3390/admsci15090371 · Cited by 35
Cooray, S. D., Boyle, J. A., Soldatos, G., Wijeyaratne, L. A., & Teede, H. J. (2019) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-019-1151-0 · Cited by 20
Mitima-Verloop, H. B., Boelen, P. A., & Mooren, T. T. M. (2020) · European Journal of Psychotraumatology · doi:10.1080/20008198.2019.1701226 · Cited by 22
Pho, A. T., Mangal, S., & Henry, S. B. (2021) · Transgender Health · doi:10.1089/trgh.2020.0174 · Cited by 19
“36 Two reviewers (A.P. and S.M.) then used Covidence software (Covidence Ltd., Melbourne, Australia) to identify any additional duplicates and proceed with the screening.”
Use of complexity theory in health and social care: a scoping review protocol
Carroll, Á. M., Stokes, D., & Darley, A. (2021) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047633 · Cited by 19
Health promotion interventions supporting Indigenous healthy ageing: a scoping review
Oosman, S. N., Nisbet, C., Smith, L., & Abonyi, S. (2021) · International Journal of Circumpolar Health · doi:10.1080/22423982.2021.1950391 · Cited by 24
Cimino, S. R., Vijayakumar, A., MacKay, C., Mayo, A. L., Hitzig, S. L., & Guilcher, S. J. T. (2021) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2021.1974106 · Cited by 18
Granikov, V., Sherif, R. E., Bouthillier, F., & Pluye, P. (2021) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24596 · Cited by 19
“All identified records were imported into EndNote x9 reference management software, where duplicates were removed using the Bramer method (Bramer et al., 2016).”
MethodLandau, A. J., Parameswaran, P., Fresco, R., et al. (2021) · Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000008627 · Cited by 18
Women’s experiences of safety apps for sexualized violence: a narrative scoping review
Doria, N. A., Ausman, C., Wilson, S., Consalvo, A., Sinno, J., Boulos, L., & Numer, M. (2021) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-021-12292-5 · Cited by 23
Bamidele, O. O., Alexis, O., Ogunsanya, M. E., Greenley, S. L., Worsley, A. J., & Mitchell, E. D. (2022) · Supportive Care in Cancer · doi:10.1007/s00520-021-06716-6 · Cited by 22
“Search results were managed using bibliographic software: Endnote and Covidence.”
MethodInfluentialBurke, C. W., Firmin, E. S., & Wilens, T. E. (2022) · American Journal on Addictions · doi:10.1111/ajad.13340 · Cited by 18
Cimino, S. R., Cadel, L., Guilcher, S. J. T., Wasilewski, M. B., & Hitzig, S. L. (2022) · Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine · doi:10.1080/10790268.2022.2129170 · Cited by 19
Coumoundouros, C., Mårtensson, E., Ferraris, G., Zuidberg, J. M., von Essén, L., Sanderman, R., & Woodford, J. (2022) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/41891 · Cited by 20
“Database searches were deduplicated using EndNote X9 (Clarivate) [78] and imported into Rayyan [79] to facilitate independent screening of all records by 2 reviewers (CC and EM, GF, or JMZ).”
MethodA systematic review of validated assessments methods for head and neck lymphedema
Arends, C. R., Lindhout, J. E., van der Molen, L., Wilthagen, E. A., van den Brekel, M. W. M., & Stuiver, M. M. (2023) · European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology · doi:10.1007/s00405-023-07841-0 · Cited by 19
Is dementia more likely following traumatic brain injury? A systematic review
HANRAHAN, J. G., Burford, C., Nagappan, P. G., Adegboyega, G., Rajkumar, S., Kolias, A. G., Helmy, A. E., & Hutchinson, P. J. (2023) · Journal of Neurology · doi:10.1007/s00415-023-11614-4 · Cited by 20
“A formal deduplication procedure was followed to remove duplicates from the searches [17].”
MethodSchreier, V. N., Çörek, E., Appenzeller‐Herzog, C., et al. (2023) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2023.107978 · Cited by 18
Work participation in adults with rare genetic diseases - a scoping review
Velvin, G., Dammann, B., Haagensen, T., Johansen, H., Strømme, H., Geirdal, A. Ø., & Bathen, T. (2023) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-023-15654-3 · Cited by 18
“From papers that included other populations or themes in addition to WP in RDs, we only selected and presented data on WP in the RDs. Stage V: summarizing and presenting results All publications were sorted according to diagnostic groups and specific diagnosis using EndNote [36].”
MethodInfluentialAxelsson, E., Kern, D., Hedman‐Lagerlöf, E., Lindfors, P., Palmgren, J., Hesser, H., Andersson, E., Johansson, R., Olén, O., Bonnert, M., et al. (2023) · Cognitive Behaviour Therapy · doi:10.1080/16506073.2023.2225745 · Cited by 26
Bohne, A., Grundler, E., Knüttel, H., Fürst, A., & Völkel, V. (2023) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers15133381 · Cited by 20
“Deduplication according to the Bramer method [38] in Endnote (semiautomatic steps A–C) was followed by further deduplication using the Systematic Review Accelerator [39].”
MethodTreatments for hyperemesis gravidarum: A systematic review
Vinnars, M., Forslund, M., Claesson, I., Hedman, A., Peira, N., Olofsson, H., Wernersson, E., & Ulfsdottir, H. (2023) · Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/aogs.14706 · Cited by 23
“Duplicates were removed using EndNote X9, 14 using a method developed by Bramer et al. 15 Two authors (AH, NP) independently screened all abstracts for inclusion.”
MethodHagag, A. M., Kaye, R., Hoang, V., Riedl, S., Anders, P., Stuart, B. L., Traber, G. L., Appenzeller‐Herzog, C., Schmidt-Erfurth, U. M., Bogunović, H., et al. (2023) · Survey of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2023.10.010 · Cited by 18
Almpani, K., Tran, H. M., Ferri, A., et al. (2023) · Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research · doi:10.1016/j.jobcr.2023.10.004 · Cited by 18
Bieze, M., van Haaps, A. P., Kapural, L., et al. (2024) · Journal of Pain Research · doi:10.2147/jpr.s445616 · Cited by 18
Advanced optical imaging techniques for bladder cancer detection and diagnosis: a systematic review
Remmelink, M. J., Rip, Y., Nieuwenhuijzen, J. A., Ket, J. C. F., Oddens, J. R., de Reijke, T. M., & de Bruin, D. M. (2024) · British Journal of Urology · doi:10.1111/bju.16471 · Cited by 20
“Of the eight studies reviewed, four had an unclear risk of bias due to absence of information on patient selection (Table 2) [18,34 –”
InfluentialClinical decision support systems for maternity care: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Cockburn, N., Osborne, C., Withana, S., Elsmore, A., Nanjappa, R., South, M., Parry‐Smith, W., Taylor, B., Chandan, J. S., & Nirantharakumar, K. (2024) · EClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102822 · Cited by 20
“Searches were exported into Endnote v20 from the different databases and deduplicated using the method by Bramer et al. 37 A copy of this library was shared between reviewers, and recombined following screening to review discrepancies in inclusion.”
Kazarian, G. S., Siow, M. Y., Chen, A. F., & Deirmengian, C. A. (2017) · The Journal of Arthroplasty · doi:10.1016/j.arth.2017.08.025 · Cited by 19
Instruments for measuring nursing research competence: a protocol for a scoping review
Chen, Q., Huang, C., Castro, A. R., & Tang, S. (2021) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042325 · Cited by 22
Bombardieri, A. M., Singh, N. P., Yaeger, L., et al. (2021) · Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/ana.0000000000000783 · Cited by 18
Fit4Surgery for cancer patients during covid-19 lockdown – A systematic review and meta-analysis
van Gestel, T., Groen, L. C. B., Puik, J. R., van Rooijen, S. J., van der Zaag–Loonen, H. J., Schoonmade, L. J., Danjoux, G. R., Daams, F. D., Schreurs, W. H., & Bruns, E. R. J. (2022) · European Journal of Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2022.02.010 · Cited by 18
“01 (Clarivatetm), following the Amsterdam Efficient Deduplication (AED)-method and the Bramermethod [28,29].”
Nurses’ Experiences of their Ethical Responsibilities during Coronavirus Outbreaks: A Scoping Review
Peter, E. H., Variath, C., Mohammed, S., Mitchell, M., Killackey, T., MacIver, J., & Chiasson, C. (2022) · Canadian Journal of Nursing Research · doi:10.1177/08445621221080153 · Cited by 21
“Search results were deduplicated in EndNote™ using the optimized method by Bramer et al. (2016), then uploaded to Covidence™ where remaining duplicates were identified.”
MethodStojanov, T., Modler, L., Müller, A. M., Aghlmandi, S., Appenzeller‐Herzog, C., Loucas, R., Loucas, M., & Audigé, L. (2022) · BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · doi:10.1186/s12891-022-05030-4 · Cited by 18
“References were exported to Endnote X9 (Clarivate Analytics Philadelphia, PA USA) and deduplicated using the Bramer method [20].”
MethodSalivary bypass tube in total laryngectomy: Systematic review and meta‐analysis
Costantino, A., Pace, G. M., Festa, B. M., Ferreli, F., Malvezzi, L., Spriano, G., Mercante, G., & VIRGILIO, A. D. (2022) · Head & Neck · doi:10.1002/hed.27169 · Cited by 18
“3).(40) The two investigators (Gian Marco Pace and Bianca Maria Festa) separately performed a close reading of all papers deemed relevant by screening the list of titles and abstracts retrieved by the literature search.”
BackgroundPummer, A., Knüttel, H., Hiller, K., Buchalla, W., Cieplik, F., & Maisch, T. (2017) · Future Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.4155/fmc-2017-0051 · Cited by 17
Designing and Evaluating IT Applications for Informal Caregivers: Scoping Review
Premanandan, S., Ahmad, A., Cajander, Å., Ågerfalk, P. J., & van Gemert‐Pijnen, J. E. W. C. (2024) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/57393 · Cited by 23
“Search results were first deduplicated [35] and stored using EndNote X9 (Clarivate Analytics) [36].”
MethodStress-Induced Ultrasonic Vocalization in Laboratory Rats and Mice: A Scoping Review
Venkatraman, A., Bretl, M. M., Kim, S.-I., Christensen, L., Kelm‐Nelson, C. A., Ciucci, M. R., & Thibeault, S. L. (2024) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci14111109 · Cited by 18
“The results were downloaded to citation management software (EndNote Version 20) and underwent manual deduplication via the librarian using the method described by Bramer et al. [40].”
Ulrich, S., Schneider, E., Deuring, G., Erni, S., Ridder, M., Sarlon, J., & Brühl, A. B. (2025) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106017 · Cited by 20
“Deduplication was performed using EndNote (The EndNote Team, 2013) and the method described by Bramer et al. (2016).”
Zerdes, I., Filis, P., Fountoukidis, G., El‐Naggar, A. I., Kalofonou, F., D’Alessio, A., Pouptsis, A., Foukakis, T., Pentheroudakis, G. E., Ahlgren, J., et al. (2025) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djaf015 · Cited by 19
“Deduplication was done using the method described by Bramer et al. 13 One final, extra step was added to compare Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs).”
Paes, V. M., Ting, A., Masters, J., et al. (2025) · The Bone & Joint Journal · doi:10.1302/0301-620x.107b6.bjj-2024-1255.r1 · Cited by 17
Beaulieu-Carbonneau, A., Ducharme, J., Thibeault, C., Akani, B. C., Ziegler, D., Hogan, D. R., Correa, G. C., Reynolds, H. W., & Johri, M. (2025) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2024-018293 · Cited by 23
“To ensure preliminary findings were available in time for discussions on the design of Gavi”
A Systematic Review of Treatment Options for Grieving Older Adults
Roberts, K. E., Walsh, L. E., Saracino, R. M., Fogarty, J., Coats, T., Goldberg, J., Prigerson, H. G., & Lichtenthal, W. G. (2019) · Current Treatment Options in Psychiatry · doi:10.1007/s40501-019-00191-x · Cited by 19
Treatment of current depressive symptoms in dialysis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Nadort, E., Schouten, R. W., Witte, S. H. S., Broekman, B. F. P., Honig, A., Siegert, C. E. H., & van Oppen, P. (2020) · General Hospital Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2020.07.012 · Cited by 17
van Eijk, M., Vermunt, M. A. C., van Werkhoven, E. D., Wilthagen, E. A., Huitema, A. D. R., & Beijnen, J. H. (2022) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12885-022-09196-x · Cited by 18
Bhatia, D., Salbach, N. M., Akinrolie, O., Alsbury‐Nealy, K., dos Santos, R. B., Eftekhar, P., Loewen, H., Nekolaichuk, E., Scheller, C., Schorr, R., et al. (2022) · Journal of Aging and Physical Activity · doi:10.1123/japa.2021-0151 · Cited by 16
“The final searches were exported by the second librarian, who removed duplicates using the Bramer algorithm, validated for use with EndNote citation management software (version X7; Thompson Reuters, Los Angeles, CA; Bramer et al., 2016).”
MethodKocatürk, R. R., Temizyürek, A., Özcan, Ö. Ö., Erguzel, T. T., Karahan, M., Konuk, M., & Tarhan, N. (2022) · International Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/00207454.2022.2079506 · Cited by 17
“The duplicate results were removed through EndNote De-duplicator [21] and after checked manually through Zotero software [22].”
MethodIdiopathic scoliosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of heritability
Cheng, T., Einarsdóttir, E., Kere, J., & Gerdhem, P. (2022) · EFORT Open Reviews · doi:10.1530/eor-22-0026 · Cited by 17
Relation between the food environment and oral health—systematic review
Mackenbach, J. D., Ibouanga, E. L., van der Veen, M. H., Ziesemer, K. A., & de Pinho, M. G. M. (2022) · European Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckac086 · Cited by 19
Lim, G., Soens, M., Wanaselja, A., Chyan, A., Carvalho, B., Landau, R., George, R. B., Klem, M. L., Osmundson, S. S., Krans, E. E., et al. (2022) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000006167 · Cited by 19
Villegas, F. E., van der Steen, S., & Minnaert, A. (2022) · Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s40489-022-00346-2 · Cited by 15
“For the removal of duplicates, we followed Bramer et al. (2016) de-duplication method, which only required modifications on Endnote’s settings.”
Risk stratification in adult and pediatric pulmonary arterial hypertension: A systematic review
Lokhorst, C., van der Werf, S., Berger, R. M. F., & Douwes, J. M. (2022) · Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine · doi:10.3389/fcvm.2022.1035453 · Cited by 18
Park, S. Y., Kim, Y., Kim, S., et al. (2022) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.gim.2022.100001 · Cited by 17
Ataman, R., Thomas, A., Roberge‐Dao, J., McKerral, M., Auger, C., Wittich, W., Talla, P. K., Boychuck, Z., & Ahmed, S. (2023) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2022.12.196 · Cited by 19
A meta‐analytic review of monoterpene for fish anaesthesia
Félix, L. M., Vieira, R. S. F., Monteiro, S. M., et al. (2023) · Fish and Fisheries · doi:10.1111/faf.12731 · Cited by 17
Livet, A., Navarri, X., Pétrin‐Pomerleau, P., Champagne, S., Yunus, F. M., Chadi, N., McVey, G. L., & Conrod, P. (2023) · Adolescents · doi:10.3390/adolescents3020022 · Cited by 22
“Duplicates were removed in EndNote by the librarian (SC) using the method reported by Bramer [32].”
MethodRecommendations for Next-Generation Sequencing Germline Variant Confirmation
Crooks, K., Hagman, K. D. F., Mandelker, D. L., Santani, A., Schmidt, R. J., Temple‐Smolkin, R., & Lincoln, S. E. (2023) · Journal of Molecular Diagnostics · doi:10.1016/j.jmoldx.2023.03.012 · Cited by 17
Gillen, P. A., Bamidele, O. O., & Healy, M. (2023) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2023.103733 · Cited by 17
Verreault, M. D., Granger, É., Neveu, X., Delage, J. P., Bastien, C., & Vallières, A. (2023) · Journal of Sleep Research · doi:10.1111/jsr.14008 · Cited by 22
Sy, M., Siongco, K. L. L., Pineda, R. C., Canalita, R., & Xyrichis, A. (2023) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-023-10278-z · Cited by 27
Perspective: Systematic review and meta-analysis in obstructive sleep apnea – What is lacking?
Lisik, D., Pires, G. N., & Zou, D. (2023) · Sleep Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.sleep.2023.09.006 · Cited by 20
van Wees, S. H., Abunnaja, K., & Mounier‐Jack, S. (2023) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-023-17081-w · Cited by 17
“De-duplication was done using the method described by Bramer et al. [20].”
BackgroundMethodBeňová, L., Semaan, A. T., Portela, A. G., Bonet, M., van den Akker, T., Pembe, A. B., Moran, A. C., & Duclos, D. (2023) · Journal of Global Health · doi:10.7189/jogh.13.04176 · Cited by 22
“In the first step, we imported the database search re-Beňová sults into EndNote and deduplicated the records [37].”
Giunti, G., & Doherty, C. P. (2024) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/48949 · Cited by 20
“In fact, automation attempts using AI models have been made in the past, with a focus on the deduplication problem, as seen in studies by Borissov et al [38] and Bramer et al [39].”
MethodGalajda, N. Á., Meznerics, F. A., Mátrai, P., Fehérvári, P., Lengyel, A., Kolonics, M. V., Sipos, Z., Kemény, L. V., Csupor, D., Hegyi, P. J., et al. (2024) · Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology · doi:10.1111/jdv.19900 · Cited by 20
“25 The further selection process was conducted by using the software tool of Rayyan Systems (Cambridge, MA, USA) 26 ; two authors (N.Á.G. and A.S.L.) independently reviewed the publications by title, abstract and full text, with a final consensus of 95% (Cohen's Kappa: 0.95).”
MethodInfluentialUnderstanding the relevance of farmers' markets from 1955 to 2022: A bibliometric review
Török, Á., Kovács, S. Z., Maró, G., & Maró, Z. M. (2024) · Journal of Agriculture and Food Research · doi:10.1016/j.jafr.2024.101108 · Cited by 22
Krewulak, K. D., Jaworska, N., Lee, L. A., Louis, J. S., Dmitrieva, O., Leia, M. P., Doig, C. J., Niven, D. J., Parhar, K. K. S., Rochwerg, B. N., et al. (2024) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-024-11398-x · Cited by 19
“We uploaded all identified citations into EndNote X9 (Clarivate Analytics, PA, USA) and removed duplicates using the strategy outlined by Bramer et al. [39].”
Method
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
