2023
DOI: 10.1590/2177-9465-ean-2022-0143pt
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Avaliação de validade de um sistema computacional na identificação de estudos duplicados

Abstract: Resumo Objetivo Avaliar o desempenho do sistema web “Apoio à Revisão Sistemática” quanto à identificação de referências bibliográficas duplicadas, em comparação a outros programas. Métodos Trata-se de uma pesquisa metodológica que avalia o processo automático de identificação de duplicatas do sistema “Apoio à Revisão Sistemática” (versão 1.0), em comparação ao EndNote X9® e Rayyan® , considerando checagem manual como referência. Foi utilizado um conjunto de estudos relacionados a três temas sobre fibrose cís… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 10 publications
(10 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…EndNote X9 ® and Rayyan ® were used, considering the manual check of duplicate articles as a reference. A study was considered a duplicate when a bibliographic record (authorship, title, periodical, number, volume, number of pages) was retrieved more than once in one or more electronic databases, regardless of whether it presents abbreviations and variations in the spelling of any term [ 80 ]. When a reference presented the same title but had some missing data or misspelled terms, such as volume and page number [ 81 ], it was considered a duplicate abstract if it presented the same content.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…EndNote X9 ® and Rayyan ® were used, considering the manual check of duplicate articles as a reference. A study was considered a duplicate when a bibliographic record (authorship, title, periodical, number, volume, number of pages) was retrieved more than once in one or more electronic databases, regardless of whether it presents abbreviations and variations in the spelling of any term [ 80 ]. When a reference presented the same title but had some missing data or misspelled terms, such as volume and page number [ 81 ], it was considered a duplicate abstract if it presented the same content.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%