Considerations for conducting systematic reviews: A follow‐up study to evaluate the performance of various automated methods for reference de‐duplication

Abstract Searching multiple resources to locate eligible studies for research syntheses can result in hundreds to thousands of duplicate references that should be removed before the screening process for efficiency. Research investigating the performance of automated methods for deduplicating references via reference managers and systematic review software programs can become quickly outdated as new versions and programs become available. This follow‐up study examined the performance of default de‐duplication algorithms in EndNote 20, EndNote online classic, ProQuest RefWorks, Deduklick, and Systematic Review Accelerator's new Deduplicator tool. On most accounts, systematic review software programs outperformed reference managers when deduplicating references. While cost and the need for institutional access may restrict researchers from being able to utilize some automated methods for deduplicating references, Systematic Review Accelerator's Deduplicator tool is free to use and demonstrated the highest accuracy and sensitivity, while also offering user‐mediation of detected duplicates to improve specificity. Researchers conducting syntheses should take automated de‐duplication performance, and methods for improving and optimizing their use, into consideration to help prevent the unintentional removal of eligible studies and potential introduction of bias to syntheses. Researchers should also be transparent about their de‐duplication process to help readers critically appraise their synthesis methods, and to comply with the PRISMA‐S extension for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews.