What a post I've been looking for! I'm very happy to finally read this post. Thank you very much. Can I refer to your post on my website? waffle game
shop garb commented
9 Aug 07:28am
Objective
The purpose of this study was to compare effectiveness of different options for de-duplicating records retrieved from systematic review searches.
Methods
Using the records from a published systematic review, five de-duplication options were compared. The time taken to de-duplicate in each option and the number of false positives (were deleted but should not have been) and false negatives (should have been deleted but were not) were recorded.
Roxanne Makeever
What a post I've been looking for! I'm very happy to finally read this post. Thank you very much. Can I refer to your post on my website? waffle game
Objective
The purpose of this study was to compare effectiveness of different options for de-duplicating records retrieved from systematic review searches.
Methods
Using the records from a published systematic review, five de-duplication options were compared. The time taken to de-duplicate in each option and the number of false positives (were deleted but should not have been) and false negatives (should have been deleted but were not) were recorded.
Bridal wear Lehenga Online
Results
The time for each option varied. The number of positive and false duplicates returned from each option also varied greatly.
Conclusion
The authors recommend different de-duplication options based on the skill level of the searcher and the purpose of de-duplication efforts.
Keywords: Biomedical Research, Standards, Duplicate Publication as Topic, Publications, Standards, Review Literature as Topic