ArticlePediatric radiology2026
Reproducibility and validity failures in systematic review deduplication tools: evaluation on a paediatric neuroradiology corpus.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDeduplication is usually treated as a routine preprocessing step in systematic reviews, yet errors introduced at this stage are not visible in Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagrams and can propagate through evidence synthesis.
objectiveTo evaluate the validity and reproducibility of commonly used deduplication tools in a paediatric neuroradiology systematic review. MATERIALS AND
methodsPubMed and Embase were searched for peer-reviewed literature on paediatric subacute sclerosing panencephalitis neuroimaging, yielding 603 records. Two reviewers independently deduplicated the combined corpus using Zotero (version 8.0.4) and Rayyan (updated 21 January 2026). A manual reference standard was established by dual-reviewer adjudication of potential duplicate pairs using title, publication year, author list, and Digital Object Identifier (DOI). Tool outputs were compared against this reference standard for false-positive and false-negative decisions and for reproducibility across runs.
resultsManual adjudication identified 120 true duplicate records, leaving 483 unique records. Zotero produced identical outputs across reviewers, indicating deterministic behaviour, but generated 16 false-positive duplicate decisions and 5 false negatives, predominantly related to DOI collision. Rayyan identified more true duplicates but produced non-identical outputs across independent runs, with 16-17 false positives and 1 false negative per run.
conclusionCommonly used deduplication tools can introduce either deterministic bias or non-deterministic record loss before screening begins. In paediatric radiology evidence synthesis, the deduplication software version and verification strategy should be explicitly reported. Auditable secondary checks should be considered before records are removed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42720737What 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.