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%)