Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26512216›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2015

Identifying and removing duplicate records from systematic review searches.

Yoojin Kwon, Michelle Lemieux, Jill McTavish, Nadine Wathen

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 29 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 29 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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 29 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Effectiveness of fracture liaison service in reducing the risk of secondary fragility fractures in adults aged 50 and older: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2024
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Determinants of maternal and neonatal PFAS concentrations: a review.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2023
    Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Yoojin Kwon
Michelle Lemieux
Jill McTavish
Nadine Wathen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare effectiveness of different options for de-duplicating records retrieved from systematic review searches.

methodsUsing the records from a published systematic review, five de-duplication options were compared. The time taken to de-duplicate in each option and the number of false positives (were deleted but should not have been) and false negatives (should have been deleted but were not) were recorded.

resultsThe time for each option varied. The number of positive and false duplicates returned from each option also varied greatly.

conclusionThe authors recommend different de-duplication options based on the skill level of the searcher and the purpose of de-duplication efforts.

Indexed as

Duplicate Publications as TopicInformation Storage and RetrievalSystematic Reviews as TopicBiomedical ResearchBiomedical ResearchStandards, Duplicate Publication as Topic, PublicationsStandards, Review Literature as Topic

Identifiers

PMID26512216
PMCPMC4613377

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.