ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2024
Finding full texts in bulk: a comparison of EndNote 20 versus Zotero 6 using the University of York's subscriptions.
Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Rumination and posttraumatic growth in people with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Barriers and facilitators of mental health help-seeking behaviours among school-going adolescents in Sub-Saharan Africa: A qualitative evidence synthesis.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To understand the performance of EndNote 20 and Zotero 6's full text retrieval features. Methods: Using the University of York's subscriptions, we tested and compared EndNote and Zotero's full text retrieval. 1,000 records from four evidence synthesis projects were tested for the number of: full texts retrieved; available full texts retrieved; unique full texts (found by one program only); and differences in versions of full texts for the same record. We also tested the time taken and accuracy of retrieved full texts. One dataset was tested multiple times to confirm if the number of full texts retrieved was consistent. We also investigated the available full texts missed by EndNote or Zotero by: reference type; whether full texts were available open access or via subscription; and the content provider. Results: EndNote retrieved 47% of available full texts versus 52% by Zotero. Zotero was faster by 2 minutes 15 seconds. Each program found unique full texts. There were differences in full text versions retrieved between programs. For both programs, 99% of the retrieved full texts were accurate. Zotero was less consistent in the number of full texts it retrieved. Conclusion: EndNote and Zotero do not find all available full texts. Users should not assume full texts are correct; are the version of record; or that records without full texts cannot be retrieved manually. Repeating the full text retrieval process multiple times could yield additional full texts. Users with access to EndNote and Zotero could use both for full text retrieval.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.