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 701–800 of 1,918
Bresser, R. A., Hofsteenge, J. W., Wieringa, T. H., Braun, P. G., Cune, M. S., Özcan, M., & Gresnigt, M. (2023) · Clinical Oral Investigations · doi:10.1007/s00784-023-05050-x · Cited by 14
“The identified records were managed using EndNote software, and duplicates were removed using the Bramer method [26].”
MethodHaneveld, M. J. K., Hieltjes, I. J., Langendam, M. W., Cornel, M. C., Gaasterland, C. M. W., & van Eeghen, A. M. (2024) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.gim.2024.101071 · Cited by 15
What Is Known About Mindfulness and Self-Compassion Among Sport Coaches? A Scoping Review
Hägglund, K., Kenttä, G., Wagstaff, C. R. D., & Bentzen, M. (2024) · International Sport Coaching Journal · doi:10.1123/iscj.2023-0066 · Cited by 15
“The fi nal search results were exported into EndNote, and de-duplication was conducted in accordance with the method offered by Bramer et al. (2016).”
MethodMcKeown, S., & Mir, Z. M. (2024) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1736 · Cited by 14
Hirabayashi, E., Mercado, G., Hull, B., Soin, S., Koshy-Chenthittayil, S., Raman, S., Huang, T., Keerthisinghe, C., Feliciano, S., Dongo, A., et al. (2024) · JBI Evidence Synthesis · doi:10.11124/jbies-23-00291 · Cited by 15
Ribeiro, N. Q., Mendonça, C. R., da Costa, W. P., Terra, L. F., da Cruz, R. V. P., Sorpreso, I. C. E., Noll, P. R. E. S., & Noll, M. A. (2024) · MethodsX · doi:10.1016/j.mex.2024.103003 · Cited by 18
“Duplicates will be removed following Bramer’s method [ 46 ], and we will carry out a manual review to confirm their exclusion [ 47 ].”
MethodListen up: a systematic review of the utilization and efficacy of podcasts for medical education
Caldwell, K. E., Rodríguez, J., Fox, J., et al. (2024) · Global Surgical Education - Journal of the Association for Surgical Education · doi:10.1007/s44186-024-00301-1 · Cited by 13
“All search strategies were initially completed July 16, 2019, and a total of 1,049 results were found and exported to Endnote, after which 517 duplicate records were deleted after using described de-duplification processes [27].”
Clarke, S. L., Soons, N., Videler, A. C., van Alphen, S. P. J., Van, H. L., Dil, L., Pappijn, L., Corbeij, S., Broekhof, B., Chanen, A. M., et al. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1473051 · Cited by 20
Bitencourt, A. G. V., Goldberg, J., Pinker, K., & Thakur, S. B. (2019) · Metabolomics · doi:10.1007/s11306-019-1611-5 · Cited by 13
Jean, Y.-K., Gitlin, M. C., Reynolds, J. M., et al. (2019) · Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d anesthésie · doi:10.1007/s12630-019-01548-9 · Cited by 13
Pel, E., Engelberts, I., & Schermer, M. (2021) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.13584 · Cited by 13
“2.2 | Search strategy Our multi-database systematic literature search strategy included the methodology described by Bramer et al.21,22 Five electronic databases were searched on 6 December 2018.”
MethodInfluentialHodel, J., Stucki, G., & Prodinger, B. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.07.015 · Cited by 15
Davies, J., Dinyarian, C., Wheeler, A. L., Dale, C., & Cleverley, K. (2022) · Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation · doi:10.1097/htr.0000000000000780 · Cited by 14
Adherence to Oral Anticancer Medications Among Women With Breast Cancer in Africa: A Scoping Review
Onwusah, D. O., Ojewole, E. B., & Chimbari, M. J. (2023) · JCO Global Oncology · doi:10.1200/go.21.00289 · Cited by 13
Gao, S., Albu, E., Tuand, K., Cossey, V., Rademakers, F. E., CALSTER, B. V., & Wynants, L. (2023) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.07.019 · Cited by 14
Patient education interventions for prescription opioids: A systematic review
Kadakia, N. N., Rogers, R. L., Reed, J. B., Dark, E., & Plake, K. S. I. (2020) · Journal of the American Pharmacists Association · doi:10.1016/j.japh.2020.02.013 · Cited by 15
Wellbeing Conceptualizations in Family Medicine Trainees: A Hermeneutic Review
Prentice, S., Benson, J., Dorstyn, D., & Elliott, T. E. (2021) · Teaching and Learning in Medicine · doi:10.1080/10401334.2021.1919519 · Cited by 14
Brouwer, M., Hofstee, L., van den Brand, S. A. G. E., Teijema, J. J., Ferdinands, G., de Boer, J., Weijdema, F., Kramer, B., Wiers, R., Bockting, C., et al. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/j6nqz · Cited by 11
de Sá, T. H., Sudsataya, D., Fry, A., et al. (2024) · Journal of Transport & Health · doi:10.1016/j.jth.2024.101859 · Cited by 12
Local administration of immunotherapy for patients with skin cancer: A systematic review
Janssen, J. C., van Dijk, B., Hoeijmakers, L. L., Grünhagen, D. J., Bramer, W. M., Verhoef, C. K., de Gruijl, T. D., Blank, C. U., & van der Veldt, A. A. M. (2024) · Cancer Treatment Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.ctrv.2024.102848 · Cited by 12
Self-citationO'Donovan, F., Capobianco, L., Taylor-Bennett, J., & Adrian Wells, A. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0309683 · Cited by 13
Strategies to improve the quality of nurse triage in emergency departments: A systematic review
Ouellet, S., Gallani, M. C. B. J., Fontaine, G., Mercier, É., Lapierre, A., Severino, F., Gélinas, C., & Berube, M. (2025) · International Emergency Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.ienj.2025.101639 · Cited by 12
McTague, K., Prizeman, G., Shelly, S., Eustace‐Cook, J., & McCann, E. (2022) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.15459 · Cited by 13
“The results were exported from each database and uploaded into Endnote X9 (Clarivate Analytics) and duplicates were removed (Bramer et al., 2016).”
Methodvan der Sluys, M.-E., Zijlmans, J., Ket, J. C. F., Marhe, R., Popma, A., Scherder, E., & van der Laan, P. H. (2022) · Journal of Experimental Criminology · doi:10.1007/s11292-022-09536-8 · Cited by 14
“0.1 (Clarivate tm ), following the Amster-dam Efficient Deduplication (AED)-method (Otten et al., 2019) and the Bramer-method (Bramer et al., 2016).”
InfluentialZalta, A., Vanderboll, K., Dent, A., Contreras, I. M., Malek, N., Lascano, X., Zellner, K. L., Grandhi, J., Araujo, P. J., Straka, K., et al. (2023) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2023.115061 · Cited by 12
“(Clarivate Analytics), and duplicates were removed via a modified version of the Bramer method (Bramer et al., 2016).”
MethodA scoping review of remote facilitation during simulation-based healthcare education
Park, J. O., Lee-Jayaram, J. J., Sato, E., Eto, Y., Kahili-Heede, M. K., Hirayama, K., & Berg, B. W. (2023) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-023-04551-3 · Cited by 12
“The final search outcome was deduplicated by the librarian (MK) following Bram-er’s methods [25].”
MethodShah, R., Rodrigues, R., Phillips, V., & Khatib, M. (2023) · Journal of Plastic Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2023.11.046 · Cited by 13
Dubey, N., Bellamy, F., Bhat, S., MacFater, W. S., & Rossaak, J. I. (2023) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1016/j.bja.2023.11.046 · Cited by 12
Feng, G., Posa, S., Sureshkumar, A., Simpson, S., Bruno, T. R., Morrow, S. A., Donkers, S. J., Knox, K. B., Feinstein, A., Bayley, M. T., et al. (2024) · Journal of Neurology · doi:10.1007/s00415-023-12116-z · Cited by 14
“Dupli-cates were removed as per the Bramer method [18].”
Friebel, T. M., Alvarez, G. G., Lappen, H., Pace, L. E., Huang, K., Fernández, M. E., Shelley, D., & Rositch, A. F. (2024) · JCO Global Oncology · doi:10.1200/go.23.00238 · Cited by 15
An Integrative Review of Micro-Credentials and Digital Badges for Pharmacy Educators
Vordenberg, S. E., Fusco, N. M., Ward, K. E., et al. (2024) · American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education · doi:10.1016/j.ajpe.2024.100660 · Cited by 12
Miranda-Tueros, M., Peña, J. J. R. R., Cabanillas‐Lazo, M., Paz‐Ibarra, J., & Pinedo-Torres, I. A. (2024) · Revista Peruana de Medicina Experimental y Salud Pública · doi:10.17843/rpmesp.2024.412.12751 · Cited by 21
“(26) .”
Rahmani, M., Dierker, D. L., Yaeger, L., et al. (2024) · Brain Imaging and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11682-024-00902-w · Cited by 12
“3,367 duplicate records were deleted after using the de-duplication processes described in “De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in End-Note,” (Bramer et al., 2016) another seven records were removed after being screened with the database tool Covi-dence, and 18 were manually removed result…”
Moell, A., Lyle, M. S., Rozental, A., & Långström, N. (2024) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(24)00204-9 · Cited by 13
Chang, R. C., Yen, H., Heskett, K. M., & Yen, H. (2024) · Journal of Prevention · doi:10.1007/s10935-024-00795-x · Cited by 13
“Duplicates were removed using the Bramer de-duplication method (Bramer et al., 2016).”
Definitions of pulmonary exacerbation in people with cystic fibrosis: a scoping review
Almulhem, M. M., Ward, C., Haq, I., Gray, R. D., & Brodlie, M. (2024) · BMJ Open Respiratory Research · doi:10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002456 · Cited by 12
“22 After removing the duplicates, all results were exported to the Rayyan website 23 to screen the title and abstract.”
MethodKearns, R., Dooley, J. S. G., Matthews, M., & McNeilly, A. M. (2024) · Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · doi:10.1080/15502783.2024.2388085 · Cited by 14
“Only randomized controlled trials were considered, with the inclusion period spanning from 2012 to 2023 to ensure the inclusion of up-to-date findings and the use of contemporary methods [52,53].”
MethodGibson, C. J., Ajmera, M., O’Sullivan, F., et al. (2024) · Women & Health · doi:10.1080/03630242.2024.2392136 · Cited by 12
“…(Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health 2023; Healthcare Improvement Scotland/SIGN 2023), and deduplication of references was performed using an algorithm developed by Bramer et al., per EUnetHTA guidelines (Bramer et al. 2016; European Network for Health Technology Assessment 2019).”
Hirschmiller, J., Schmeckenbecher, J., Schwinn, T., Wiltink, J., Brähler, E., Kapusta, N. D., Zwerenz, R., Beutel, M. E., & Ernst, M. (2024) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.70030 · Cited by 15
“After removing the duplicates following the guidelines by Bramer et al. [31], we screened study abstracts and titles and excluded articles that did not fit the inclusion criteria.”
Tang, Y. H., van Bakelen, N. B., Gareb, B., & Spijkervet, F. K. L. (2024) · Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.jcms.2024.12.006 · Cited by 14
The Impact of Surgical Prehabilitation on Postoperative Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review
Kann, M. R., Estes, E. M., Pugazenthi, S., Barpujari, A., Mohan, V. C., Rogers, J. L., Kashyap, J., Hardi, A., & Graffeo, C. S. (2025) · Journal of Surgical Research · doi:10.1016/j.jss.2024.11.024 · Cited by 13
Palmer, C., Kane, J., Patterson, P. H., & Tuomainen, H. (2025) · Journal of Child and Family Studies · doi:10.1007/s10826-025-03007-0 · Cited by 12
“Duplicates were systematically removed in Endnote in line with recommendations from Bramer et al. (2016).”
Zwaan, E., Zipfel, N., Kuijer‐Siebelink, W., Oomens, S. P. C. J., & van der Burg-Vermeulen, S. J. (2025) · Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation · doi:10.1007/s10926-025-10278-3 · Cited by 13
“Deduplication was done in EndNote following the steps suggested by Bramer et al. [40].”
Neste, M. V., Verschoren, K., Kempenaers, R., Eerdekens, A., Kitshoff, D., Allegaert, K., & Bogaerts, A. (2025) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu17060946 · Cited by 13
“The literature search was carried out on 21 December 2023, after which duplicates were removed according to Bramer et al. (2016) [26].”
Rodríguez, E. G., Ponjuán, D. T., Lahera, Y. M., & Jorge, R. A. (2019) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-019-03233-6 · Cited by 12
A systematic review of case-mix models for home health care payment: Making sense of variation
van den Bulck, A. O. E., de Korte, M. H., Elissen, A., Metzelthin, S., Mikkers, M. C., & Ruwaard, D. (2020) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.12.012 · Cited by 13
AlAujan, S. S., Almazrou, S. H., & Al-Aqeel, S. (2021) · Risk Management and Healthcare Policy · doi:10.2147/rmhp.s285359 · Cited by 12
Morgan, N., Suryani, I. R., Shujaat, S., et al. (2021) · Clinical Oral Investigations · doi:10.1007/s00784-021-04126-w · Cited by 12
Onuegbu, C. M., Larweh, M., Harlock, J., & Griffiths, F. E. (2021) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050766 · Cited by 12
Tholany, J., Kobayashi, T., Marra, A. R., Schweizer, M. L., Samuelson, R. J., & Suzuki, H. (2022) · Open Forum Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/ofid/ofac200 · Cited by 13
“All database results were exported to EndNote and de-duplicated (Supplementary Table 1) [22].”
MethodHernández‐Vásquez, A., Vargas‐Fernández, R., Visconti-Lopez, F. J., Comandé, D., & Bendezú-Quispe, G. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph191610036 · Cited by 13
Galata, C. L., Ortolano, L. C., Shafiei, S., et al. (2022) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers14184361 · Cited by 12
“Duplicates were removed in EndNote 20 (Clarivate Analytics, London, UK) by the librarian (LCO) following the Bramer Method [3].”
MethodPerkins, J. M., Re, T., Ong, S., Niu, Z., & Wen, X. (2022) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntac213 · Cited by 12
Mason, W., Cuttance, E. L., Müller, K. R., et al. (2022) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2022-22127 · Cited by 12
Hernández‐Vásquez, A., Visconti-Lopez, F. J., Cabanillas-Ramirez, C., Díaz-Seijas, D., Meléndez-Escalante, J., Comandé, D., & Santero, M. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph192214921 · Cited by 13
Carbon fiber ankle-foot orthoses in impaired populations: A systematic review
Grunst, M. M., Wiederien, R. C., & Wilken, J. M. (2023) · Prosthetics and Orthotics International · doi:10.1097/pxr.0000000000000217 · Cited by 12
“The resulting references from each database were exported into an EndNote library (vX9, Clarivate Analytics LLC, Philadelphia, PA) and deduplicated using the Bramer deduplication method.(10) A protocol was not prepared for this review.”
Reick, S., Burckhardt, M., Palm, R., & Kottner, J. (2023) · Nursing Open · doi:10.1002/nop2.1863 · Cited by 12
“The results of the databases were exported to Endnote (Thomson Reuters, 2020), where the duplicate check was performed in seven steps (Bramer et al., 2016).”
MethodByrne, J. F., Mongan, D., Murphy, J., Healy, C., Föcking, M., Cannon, M. D., & Cotter, D. (2023) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/s41398-023-02623-y · Cited by 14
“Data were extracted from studies using the CHARMS checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies [27].”
MethodDefining and conceptualising data harmonisation: a scoping review protocol
Schmidt, B., Colvin, C. J., Hohlfeld, A., & Leon, N. (2018) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0890-7 · Cited by 12
Global systematic review of the effects of suicide prevention interventions in Indigenous peoples
Leske, S., Paul, E., Gibson, M., Little, B., Wenitong, M., & Kõlves, K. (2020) · Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech-2019-212368 · Cited by 12
Xavier, J. M., Rudzinski, K., Guţă, A., Carusone, S. C., & Strıke, C. (2020) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2020.103040 · Cited by 12
Birgersson, U., Wettervik, T. S., Sundblom, J., et al. (2024) · Acta Neurochirurgica · doi:10.1007/s00701-024-06312-7 · Cited by 11
“Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standards, the literature was systematically reviewed, incorporating the method for duplicate removal as proposed by Bramer et al., supplemented with DOI comparison [13].”
Bäck, A., Asper, M. M., Madsen, S., Eriksson, L., Costea, V.-A., Hasson, H., & Bergström, A. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-092525 · Cited by 11
Kruth, S. S., Persad, E., & Rakow, A. (2025) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu17071228 · Cited by 11
A scoping review of distributed cognition in acute care clinical decision-making
Wilson, E., Daniel, M. M., Rao, A., et al. (2022) · Diagnosis · doi:10.1515/dx-2022-0095 · Cited by 11
Hashem, A., Mohamed, M. S., Al-Abdullah, K., Elkhapery, A., Khalouf, A., Saadi, S., Nayfeh, T., Rai, D., Alali, O., Kinzelman-Vesely, E. A., et al. (2023) · Current problems in cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2023.101658 · Cited by 11
Evaluating the learning outcomes of interfaith initiatives: a systematic literature review
Visser, H. J., Liefbroer, A. I., & Schoonmade, L. J. (2023) · Journal of Beliefs and Values · doi:10.1080/13617672.2023.2196486 · Cited by 18
“0.1 (Clarivate tm ), following the Amsterdam Efficient Deduplication (AED)-method (Otten, de Vries, and Schoonmade 2019) and the Bramer-method (Bramer et al. 2016).”
InfluentialBlondeel, J., Gilbo, N., Bondt, S. D., & Monbaliu, D. R. L. (2023) · Stem Cell Reviews and Reports · doi:10.1007/s12015-023-10573-7 · Cited by 11
“De-duplication was performed in End - note according to Bramer et al [ 27 ].”
Methodvan Leeuwen, M. M., Doyle, S., van den Belt‐Dusebout, A. W., van der Mierden, S., Loo, C. E., Mann, R. M., Teuwen, J., & Wesseling, J. (2023) · Insights into Imaging · doi:10.1186/s13244-023-01529-z · Cited by 12
“Dupli-cates were removed using the Bramer method, a specialized technique designed to increase accuracy when compared to automatic deduplication by a reference management system [53].”
MethodMitchell, S., Sehlbach, C., Franssen, G. H. L. M., Janczukowicz, J., & Guttormsen, S. (2024) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077282 · Cited by 13
Kim, S., Wilson, P., & Abraham, O. (2024) · JMIR Serious Games · doi:10.2196/58724 · Cited by 11
“The results were deduplicated using Bramer et al’s [50] method.”
MethodThe evolution of Kaizen in the industry: systematic literature review
Sahmi, Z., & Abbadi, L. E. (2024) · International journal of production management and engineering · doi:10.4995/ijpme.2024.21143 · Cited by 11
“The data analysis process can involve the use of qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods approaches, depending on the research questions and the nature of the data (Bramer et al., 2016).”
MethodRajagopalan, S. S., & Tammimies, K. (2024) · Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders · doi:10.1186/s11689-024-09579-0 · Cited by 14
“De-duplication was done using the method described by Bramer et al. [21].”
Implementation strategies of fall prevention interventions in hospitals: a systematic review
Spoon, D., de Legé, T., Oudshoorn, C., van Dijk, M., & Ista, E. (2024) · BMJ Open Quality · doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003006 · Cited by 16
Personality and help-seeking for psychological distress: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Szücs, A., Lam, R. H. X., Tang, W. S. W., Zhou, L., Lazarus, M., Maier, A. B., & Valderas, J. M. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1405167 · Cited by 18
Janssen, S. H. M., van der Graaf, W. T. A., Hurley-Wallace, A. L., Vlooswijk, C. C. P., Padilla, C. S., Cairns, C., Tyler, C. J., Holthuis, E. I., Rohde, G. E., Hunt, K. J., et al. (2025) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers17030454 · Cited by 11
Meyer, M., Strazdins, E., Guessoum, A., Westenberg, J. N., Appenzeller‐Herzog, C., Cattaneo, M., Krausz, M. R., Dürsteler, K. M., Lang, U. E., Hemkens, L. G., et al. (2025) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.70000 · Cited by 11
Paes, V. M., Ting, A., Masters, J., et al. (2025) · Bone & Joint Open · doi:10.1302/2633-1462.63.bjo-2024-0104.r1 · Cited by 11
Shrivastav, V. N., Yogesh, M., Ramachandran, A., Makwana, N. R., & Parmar, D. (2025) · BMC Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1186/s12879-025-10941-3 · Cited by 10
“After removing duplicate and irrelevant research [20], there were 1220 studies.”
Malkowski, O. S., Harvey, J., Townsend, N. P., Kelson, M. J., Foster, C. E., Western, M. J., AlKhatib, A. H., Bourassa, K. J., Burnett, H., Cajita, M., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity · doi:10.1186/s12966-025-01775-y · Cited by 13
Tallon, M. M., Brown, J. A., Solomons, T., Kalembo, F. W., Bosco, A. M., Lim, E., Ngune, I., Moore, K., & Wilson, S. (2021) · JBI Evidence Synthesis · doi:10.11124/jbies-20-00471 · Cited by 10
Ho, P. T., Burton, M. P., Ma, C., & Hailu, A. (2021) · Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1111/1477-9552.12468 · Cited by 17
Dauletbaev, N., Oftring, Z. S., Akik, W., Michaelis-Braun, L., Korel, J., Lands, L. C., Waldmann, S., Müller, B. S., Dreher, M., Rohde, G. G. U., et al. (2022) · Paediatric Respiratory Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.prrv.2022.01.002 · Cited by 11
“Iterative deduplication designed to maximize the exclusion of replicate publications [19] removed only 3747 (32.”
Kidney injury rates after unilateral nephrectomy in childhood—a systematic review and meta-analysis
Woud, S. G. I. ’., Gobino, A., Roeleveld, N., et al. (2022) · Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation · doi:10.1093/ndt/gfac021 · Cited by 11
“The identified studies were imported into EndNote and duplicates were removed using the methods of Bramer et al. [9].”
MethodWikström, L., Schildmeijer, K. G. I., Nylander, E. M., & Eriksson, K. (2022) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-022-07718-8 · Cited by 13
“Records found during the search phase were exported to reference management software (EndNote) to enable the identification and removal of duplicates [24].”
MethodPerspective-taking by teachers in coping with disruptive classroom behavior: A scoping review
Vliegen, A. O. , van Hattum, M. J. C., Swaab, H., & Staal, W. (2023) · Social Sciences & Humanities Open · doi:10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100439 · Cited by 11
Kontos, A. P., Eagle, S. R., Braithwaite, R. E., Preszler, J. R., Manderino, L. M., Turner, R. L., Jennings, S., Trbovich, A. M., Hickey, R. W., Collins, M. W., et al. (2023) · The American Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1177/03635465221150214 · Cited by 13
Efficacy of Postpartum Pharmacologic Thromboprophylaxis
Oakes, M. C., Reese, M., Colditz, G. A., Stoll, C. R. T., Hardi, A., Arnold, L. D., & Frolova, A. I. (2023) · Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000005122 · Cited by 11
Werts, S. J., Lavelle, S. A., Crane, T. E., & Thomson, C. A. (2023) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers15174366 · Cited by 11
Brandenbarg, P., Hoekstra, F., Barakou, I., Seves, B. L., Hettinga, F. J., Hoekstra, T., van der Woude, L. H. V., Dekker, R., & Krops, L. A. (2023) · BMC Sports Science Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1186/s13102-023-00717-0 · Cited by 12
“Before screening, duplicates were removed using Bramer et al.’s method [38] in EndNote.”
MethodNwosu, E. C., Makwambeni, P. R., Herstad, S. H., Etsebeth, H., Hendricks, G., Aguiar, A., Alaba, O. A., Blanchard, L., Fismen, A., Lien, N., et al. (2023) · Obesity Reviews · doi:10.1111/obr.13629 · Cited by 12
“Therefore, it is recommended to include either Rayyan, Covidence, or Ovid in the deduplication process.(33,34) Hence, for quality assurance purposes, the remaining references after deduplication were imported into Rayyan (https://rayyan.”
MethodMedeiros, C., Buckley, L., Metcalfe, K. A., Narayanan, U. G., & Widger, K. A. (2020) · Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health · doi:10.1111/jpc.14885 · Cited by 11
Frolova, A., Shanahan, M., Tuuli, M. G., Simon, L. E., & Young, O. (2019) · Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine · doi:10.1080/14767058.2020.1769591 · Cited by 13
Elfanagely, Y., Atsawarungruangkit, A., Scharfen, J., et al. (2020) · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · doi:10.1007/s10620-020-06709-1 · Cited by 11
Oakman, J., Cahill, L. S., Clune, S., Neilson, C., Shields, N., Tse, T., O’Keefe, S., Frederico, M., Graco, M., Holland, A. E., et al. (2020) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzaa164 · Cited by 11
Chicoine, G., Côté, J., Pépin, J., Fontaine, G., Maheu‐Cadotte, M., Hong, Q. N., Rouleau, G., Ziegler, D., & Jutras‐Aswad, D. (2021) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01832-0 · Cited by 13
“Study selection Before the screening process, duplicates will be removed with EndNote X9 using a Bramer method for de-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews [56].”
MethodMetabolic Syndrome in Endometrial Cancer Patients: Systematic Review
Adambekov, S., Yi, Y., Fabio, A., Miljkovic, I., Edwards, R. P., Lopa, S., & Linkov, F. Y. (2019) · Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders · doi:10.1089/met.2018.0106 · Cited by 11
Istanboulian, L., Rose, L., Yunusova, Y., Gorospe, F., & Dale, C. (2019) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-019-1232-0 · Cited by 11
Introducing altmetrics to the Journal of the Medical Library Association
Akers, K. G. (2017) · Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA · doi:10.5195/jmla.2017.250 · Cited by 11
The effect of combining antibiotics on resistance: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Siedentop, B., Kachalov, V. N., Witzany, C., Egger, M., Kouyos, R. D., & Bonhoeffer, S. (2024) · eLife · doi:10.1101/2023.07.10.23292374 · Cited by 16
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
