Automation of duplicate record detection for systematic reviews: Deduplicator

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: To describe the algorithm and investigate the efficacy of a novel systematic review automation tool "the Deduplicator" to remove duplicate records from a multi-database systematic review search. METHODS: We constructed and tested the efficacy of the Deduplicator tool by using 10 previous Cochrane systematic review search results to compare the Deduplicator's 'balanced' algorithm to a semi-manual EndNote method. Two researchers each performed deduplication on the 10 libraries of search results. For five of those libraries, one researcher used the Deduplicator, while the other performed semi-manual deduplication with EndNote. They then switched methods for the remaining five libraries. In addition to this analysis, comparison between the three different Deduplicator algorithms ('balanced', 'focused' and 'relaxed') was performed on two datasets of previously deduplicated search results. RESULTS: Before deduplication, the mean library size for the 10 systematic reviews was 1962 records. When using the Deduplicator, the mean time to deduplicate was 5 min per 1000 records compared to 15 min with EndNote. The mean error rate with Deduplicator was 1.8 errors per 1000 records in comparison to 3.1 with EndNote. Evaluation of the different Deduplicator algorithms found that the 'balanced' algorithm had the highest mean F1 score of 0.9647. The 'focused' algorithm had the highest mean accuracy of 0.9798 and the highest recall of 0.9757. The 'relaxed' algorithm had the highest mean precision of 0.9896. CONCLUSIONS: This demonstrates that using the Deduplicator for duplicate record detection reduces the time taken to deduplicate, while maintaining or improving accuracy compared to using a semi-manual EndNote method. However, further research should be performed comparing more deduplication methods to establish relative performance of the Deduplicator against other deduplication methods.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.