Evidence-based Literature Review: De-duplication a Cornerstone for Quality

Overview

Journal World J Methodol

Publisher Baishideng Publishing Group

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2024 Jan 17

PMID 38229943

Authors

Barbara Hammer

Elettra Virgili

Federico Bilotta

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Evidence-based literature reviews play a vital role in contemporary research, facilitating the synthesis of knowledge from multiple sources to inform decision-making and scientific advancements. Within this framework, de-duplication emerges as a part of the process for ensuring the integrity and reliability of evidence extraction. This opinion review delves into the evolution of de-duplication, highlights its importance in evidence synthesis, explores various de-duplication methods, discusses evolving technologies, and proposes best practices. By addressing ethical considerations this paper emphasizes the significance of de-duplication as a cornerstone for quality in evidence-based literature reviews.

Citing Articles

Use of Digital Health Technologies for Dementia Care: Bibliometric Analysis and Report.

Abdulazeem H, Borges do Nascimento I, Weerasekara I, Sharifan A, Grandi Bianco V, Cunningham C JMIR Ment Health. 2025; 12:e64445.

PMID: 39928936 PMC: 11851039. DOI: 10.2196/64445.

References

Sohail A, Yousaf M . A proficient cost reduction framework for de-duplication of records in data integration. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016; 16:42. PMC: 4828843. DOI: 10.1186/s12911-016-0280-9. View

McKeown S, Mir Z . Considerations for conducting systematic reviews: evaluating the performance of different methods for de-duplicating references. Syst Rev. 2021; 10(1):38. PMC: 7827976. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-021-01583-y. View

Rathbone J, Carter M, Hoffmann T, Glasziou P . Better duplicate detection for systematic reviewers: evaluation of Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module. Syst Rev. 2015; 4:6. PMC: 4320616. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-6. View

Lunny C, Pieper D, Thabet P, Kanji S . Managing overlap of primary study results across systematic reviews: practical considerations for authors of overviews of reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021; 21(1):140. PMC: 8265144. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-021-01269-y. View

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel D, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C . PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 75:40-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021. View

Bramer W, Giustini D, de Jonge G, Holland L, Bekhuis T . De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016; 104(3):240-3. PMC: 4915647. DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.3.014. View

Tramer M, Reynolds D, Moore R, McQuay H . Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. BMJ. 1997; 315(7109):635-40. PMC: 2127450. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.635. View

Tsafnat G, Glasziou P, Choong M, Dunn A, Galgani F, Coiera E . Systematic review automation technologies. Syst Rev. 2014; 3:74. PMC: 4100748. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-74. View

Borissov N, Haas Q, Minder B, Kopp-Heim D, von Gernler M, Janka H . Reducing systematic review burden using Deduklick: a novel, automated, reliable, and explainable deduplication algorithm to foster medical research. Syst Rev. 2022; 11(1):172. PMC: 9382798. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-022-02045-9. View

10.

Kwon Y, Lemieux M, McTavish J, Wathen N . Identifying and removing duplicate records from systematic review searches. J Med Libr Assoc. 2015; 103(4):184-8. PMC: 4613377. DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.4.004. View

11.

Pieper D, Rombey T . Where to prospectively register a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2022; 11(1):8. PMC: 8742923. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-021-01877-1. View

12.

Hair K, Bahor Z, Macleod M, Liao J, Sena E . The Automated Systematic Search Deduplicator (ASySD): a rapid, open-source, interoperable tool to remove duplicate citations in biomedical systematic reviews. BMC Biol. 2023; 21(1):189. PMC: 10483700. DOI: 10.1186/s12915-023-01686-z. View

13.

Jiang Y, Lin C, Meng W, Yu C, Cohen A, Smalheiser N . Rule-based deduplication of article records from bibliographic databases. Database (Oxford). 2014; 2014:bat086. PMC: 3893659. DOI: 10.1093/database/bat086. View

14.

Aabenhus R, Jensen J, Cals J . Incorrect inclusion of individual studies and methodological flaws in systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pract. 2014; 64(622):221-2. PMC: 4001158. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp14X679615. View

15.

Stewart L, Moher D, Shekelle P . Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev. 2012; 1:7. PMC: 3369816. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-7. View

16.

Qi X, Yang M, Ren W, Jia J, Wang J, Han G . Find duplicates among the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Databases in systematic review. PLoS One. 2013; 8(8):e71838. PMC: 3748039. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071838. View