Voltar
Artigo Produção Nacional Revisado por pares
BIBTEX RIS

Deduplicating records in systematic reviews: there are free, accurate automated ways to do so

2022; Elsevier BV; Volume: 152; Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.10.009

ISSN

1878-5921

Autores

Nathália Sernizon Guimarães, Andrêa Jacqueline Fortes Ferreira, Rita de Cássia Ribeiro Silva, Adelzon Assis de Paula, Cinthia Soares Lisboa, Laio Magno, Maria Yury Ichiara, Maurício L. Barreto,

Tópico(s)

Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Resumo

Here, we examined the accuracy measures of a set of automated deduplication tools to identify duplicate in the eligibility process of systematic reviews.A planned search strategy was carried out on seven electronic databases until May 31, 2021. Using manual search as the reference standard, we assessed sensibility, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value (PPV).Specificity ranged from 0.96 to 1.00. Rayyan, Mendeley, and Systematic Review Accelerator (SRA) presented high sensibility (0.98 [95% CI = 0.94-1.00]; 0.93 [95% CI = 0.88-0.97] and 0.90 [95% CI = 0.84-0.95], respectively), whereas EndNote X9 and Zotero had only fair sensitivity (0.73 [95% CI = 0.65-0.80] and 0.74 [95% CI = 0.66-0.81], respectively). Negative predictive value ranged from 0.99 to 1.00. Mendeley and SRA had good PPV (0.93 [95% CI = 0.88-0.97] and 0.99 [95% CI = 0.96-1.00], respectively). PPV was fair for EndNote X9 (0.61 [95% CI = 0.54-0.69]) and Zotero (0.62 [95% CI = 0.54-0.69]) and poor for Rayyan (0.41 [95% CI = 0.36-0.47]).Choosing the most suitable tool depends on its interface's characteristics, the algorithm to identify and exclude duplicates, and the transparency of the process. Therefore, Rayyan, Mendeley, and SRA proved to be accurate enough for the systematic reviews' deduplication step.

Referência(s)