Topic
Reference management software
About: Reference management software is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 106 publications have been published within this topic receiving 1086 citations. The topic is also known as: citation management software & personal bibliographic management software.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined the accuracy and efficiency of commonly used electronic methods for flagging and removing duplicate references during the systematic review process and found that the most accurate methods for identifying duplicate references were Ovid, Covidence, and Rayyan.
Abstract: Systematic reviews involve searching multiple bibliographic databases to identify eligible studies. As this type of evidence synthesis is increasingly pursued, the use of various electronic platforms can help researchers improve the efficiency and quality of their research. We examined the accuracy and efficiency of commonly used electronic methods for flagging and removing duplicate references during this process. A heterogeneous sample of references was obtained by conducting a similar topical search in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO databases. References were de-duplicated via manual abstraction to create a benchmark set. The default settings were then used in Ovid multifile search, EndNote desktop, Mendeley, Zotero, Covidence, and Rayyan to de-duplicate the sample of references independently. Using the benchmark set as reference, the number of false-negative and false-positive duplicate references for each method was identified, and accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were determined. We found that the most accurate methods for identifying duplicate references were Ovid, Covidence, and Rayyan. Ovid and Covidence possessed the highest specificity for identifying duplicate references, while Rayyan demonstrated the highest sensitivity. This study reveals the strengths and weaknesses of commonly used de-duplication methods and provides strategies for improving their performance to avoid unintentionally removing eligible studies and introducing bias into systematic reviews. Along with availability, ease-of-use, functionality, and capability, these findings are important to consider when researchers are selecting database platforms and supporting software programs for conducting systematic reviews.
140 citations
TL;DR: Despite underreporting of use, reference management software is frequently adopted by authors of systematic reviews, and the transparency, reproducibility and quality of systematic review may be enhanced through increased reporting of reference managementSoftware usage.
Abstract: Reference management software programs enable researchers to more easily organize and manage large volumes of references typically identified during the production of systematic reviews. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which authors are using reference management software to produce systematic reviews; identify which programs are used most frequently and rate their ease of use; and assess the degree to which software usage is documented in published studies. We reviewed the full text of systematic reviews published in core clinical journals indexed in ACP Journal Club from 2008 to November 2011 to determine the extent to which reference management software usage is reported in published reviews. We surveyed corresponding authors to verify and supplement information in published reports, and gather frequency and ease-of-use data on individual reference management programs. Of the 78 researchers who responded to our survey, 79.5% reported that they had used a reference management software package to prepare their review. Of these, 4.8% reported this usage in their published studies. EndNote, Reference Manager, and RefWorks were the programs of choice for more than 98% of authors who used this software. Comments with respect to ease-of-use issues focused on the integration of this software with other programs and computer interfaces, and the sharing of reference databases among researchers. Despite underreporting of use, reference management software is frequently adopted by authors of systematic reviews. The transparency, reproducibility and quality of systematic reviews may be enhanced through increased reporting of reference management software usage.
91 citations
TL;DR: This study compares four prominent RMs: CiteULike, RefWorks, Mendeley, and Zotero, in terms of features offered and the accuracy of the bibliographies that they generate, and found that RefWorks generated the most accurate citations.
Abstract: Reference management (RM) software is widely used by researchers in the health and natural sciences. Librarians are often called upon to provide support for these products. The present study compares four prominent RMs: CiteULike, RefWorks, Mendeley, and Zotero, in terms of features offered and the accuracy of the bibliographies that they generate. To test importing and data management features, fourteen references from seven bibliographic databases were imported into each RM, using automated features whenever possible. To test citation accuracy, bibliographies of these references were generated in five different styles. The authors found that RefWorks generated the most accurate citations. The other RMs offered contrasting strengths: CiteULike in simplicity and social networking, Zotero in ease of automated importing, and Mendeley in PDF management. Ultimately, the choice of an RM should reflect the user's needs and work habits.
82 citations
TL;DR: The results show mixed search reliability, depending on the database and type of search performed, in academic databases' search interfaces versus the EndNote search interface.
53 citations
TL;DR: An analysis of citations generated by Web-based citation management programs shows that they are as accurate as EndNote and offer some advantages to undergraduates, but that some knowledge of proper citation formats is necessary to use these programs effectively.
41 citations
Related Topics (5)
Performance Metrics
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2021 | 9 |
| 2020 | 4 |
| 2019 | 10 |
| 2018 | 7 |
| 2017 | 5 |
| 2016 | 5 |