Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38229943›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of methodology2023

Evidence-based literature review: De-duplication a cornerstone for quality.

Barbara Hammer, Elettra Virgili, Federico Bilotta

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of methodology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

3 authors.

Barbara HammerLibrarian at Medical Library, University of Bergen, Bergen 5020, Norway.
Elettra VirgiliAnesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, University of Rome "La Sapienza", Rome 00166, Italy.
Federico BilottaAnesthesiology, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, University of Rome "La Sapienza", Rome 00166, Italy. federico.bilotta@uniroma1.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceBibliographicDatabasesDe-duplicationDuplicate publications as topicDuplicate referencesReference management softwareReview literature as topicSystematic reviews as topic

Identifiers

PMID38229943
PMCPMC10789108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.