Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24434031›Full record

ArticleDatabase : the journal of biological databases and curation2014

Rule-based deduplication of article records from bibliographic databases.

Yu Jiang, Can Lin, Weiyi Meng, Clement Yu, Aaron M Cohen, Neil R Smalheiser

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Database : the journal of biological databases and curation, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Campbell systematic reviews · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2016
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Identifying and removing duplicate records from systematic review searches.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2015
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yu JiangDepartment of Computer Science, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY 13902, USA, Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60612, USA, Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR 97239, USA and Department of Psychiatry and Psychiatric Institute, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.
Can Lin
Weiyi Meng
Clement Yu
Aaron M Cohen
Neil R Smalheiser

Funding

Text Mining Pipeline to Accelerate Systematic Reviews in Evidence-Based MedicineR01LM010817 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI COHEN, AARON M., SMALHEISER, NEIL R · 2010 to 2019
$4.5M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM010817
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We recently designed and deployed a metasearch engine, Metta, that sends queries and retrieves search results from five leading biomedical databases: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Because many articles are indexed in more than one of these databases, it is desirable to deduplicate the retrieved article records. This is not a trivial problem because data fields contain a lot of missing and erroneous entries, and because certain types of information are recorded differently (and inconsistently) in the different databases. The present report describes our rule-based method for deduplicating article records across databases and includes an open-source script module that can be deployed freely. Metta was designed to satisfy the particular needs of people who are writing systematic reviews in evidence-based medicine. These users want the highest possible recall in retrieval, so it is important to err on the side of not deduplicating any records that refer to distinct articles, and it is important to perform deduplication online in real time. Our deduplication module is designed with these constraints in mind. Articles that share the same publication year are compared sequentially on parameters including PubMed ID number, digital object identifier, journal name, article title and author list, using text approximation techniques. In a review of Metta searches carried out by public users, we found that the deduplication module was more effective at identifying duplicates than EndNote without making any erroneous assignments.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsDatabases, BibliographicPublicationsRecords

Identifiers

PMID24434031
PMCPMC3893659

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.