You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content

Table 4 False positives from default algorithms for each de-duplication method by language

From: Considerations for conducting systematic reviews: evaluating the performance of different methods for de-duplicating references

  English Non-English
Ovid multifile search 0 0
EndNote X9 190/208 (91%) 18/208 (9%)
Mendeley 16/17 (94%) 1/17 (6%)
Zotero 19/20 (95%) 1/20 (5%)
Covidence 2/2 (100%) 0/2 (0%)
Rayyan 44/52 (85%) 8/52 (15%)
Back to article page

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053