Better duplicate detection for systematic reviewers: Evaluation of Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module

BACKGROUND: A major problem arising from searching across bibliographic databases is the retrieval of duplicate citations. Removing such duplicates is an essential task to ensure systematic reviewers do not waste time screening the same citation multiple times. Although reference management software use algorithms to remove duplicate records, this is only partially successful and necessitates removing the remaining duplicates manually. This time-consuming task leads to wasted resources. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of a newly developed deduplication program against EndNote. METHODS: A literature search of 1,988 citations was manually inspected and duplicate citations identified and coded to create a benchmark dataset. The Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module (SRA-DM) was iteratively developed and tested using the benchmark dataset and compared with EndNote’s default one step auto-deduplication process matching on (‘author’, ‘year’, ‘title’). The accuracy of deduplication was reported by calculating the sensitivity and specificity. Further validation tests, with three additional benchmarked literature searches comprising a total of 4,563 citations were performed to determine the reliability of the SRA-DM algorithm. RESULTS: The sensitivity (84%) and specificity (100%) of the SRA-DM was superior to EndNote (sensitivity 51%, specificity 99.83%). Validation testing on three additional biomedical literature searches demonstrated that SRA-DM consistently achieved higher sensitivity than EndNote (90% vs 63%), (84% vs 73%) and (84% vs 64%). Furthermore, the specificity of SRA-DM was 100%, whereas the specificity of EndNote was imperfect (average 99.75%) with some unique records wrongly assigned as duplicates. Overall, there was a 42.86% increase in the number of duplicates records detected with SRA-DM compared with EndNote auto-deduplication. CONCLUSIONS: The Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module offers users a reliable program to remove duplicate records with greater sensitivity and specificity than EndNote. This application will save researchers and information specialists time and avoid research waste. The deduplication program is freely available online

A comparison of the performance of seven key bibliographic databases in identifying all relevant systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension

BACKGROUND: Bibliographic databases are the primary resource for identifying systematic reviews of health care interventions. Reliable retrieval of systematic reviews depends on the scope of indexing used by database providers. Therefore, searching one database may be insufficient, but it is unclear how many need to be searched. We sought to evaluate the performance of seven major bibliographic databases for the identification of systematic reviews for hypertension. METHODS: We searched seven databases (Cochrane library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Epistemonikos, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), PubMed Health and Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP)) from 2003 to 2015 for systematic reviews of any intervention for hypertension. Citations retrieved were screened for relevance, coded and checked for screening consistency using a fuzzy text matching query. The performance of each database was assessed by calculating its sensitivity, precision, the number of missed reviews and the number of unique records retrieved. RESULTS: Four hundred systematic reviews were identified for inclusion from 11,381 citations retrieved from seven databases. No single database identified all the retrieved systematic reviews for hypertension. EMBASE identified the most reviews (sensitivity 69 %) but also retrieved the most irrelevant citations with 7.2 % precision (Pr). The sensitivity of the Cochrane library was 60 %, DARE 57 %, MEDLINE 57 %, PubMed Health 53 %, Epistemonikos 49 % and TRIP 33 %. EMBASE contained the highest number of unique records (n = 43). The Cochrane library identified seven unique records and had the highest precision (Pr = 30 %), followed by Epistemonikos (n = 2, Pr = 19 %). No unique records were found in PubMed Health (Pr = 24 %) DARE (Pr = 21 %), TRIP (Pr = 10 %) or MEDLINE (Pr = 10 %). Searching EMBASE and the Cochrane library identified 88 % of all systematic reviews in the reference set, and searching the freely available databases (Cochrane, Epistemonikos, MEDLINE) identified 83 % of all the reviews. The databases were re-analysed after systematic reviews of non-conventional interventions (e.g. yoga, acupuncture) were removed. Similarly, no database identified all the retrieved systematic reviews. EMBASE identified the most relevant systematic reviews (sensitivity 73 %) but also retrieved the most irrelevant citations with Pr = 5 %. The sensitivity of the Cochrane database was 62 %, followed by MEDLINE (60 %), DARE (55 %), PubMed Health (54 %), Epistemonikos (50 %) and TRIP (31 %). The precision of the Cochrane library was the highest (20 %), followed by PubMed Health (Pr = 16 %), DARE (Pr = 13 %), Epistemonikos (Pr = 12 %), MEDLINE (Pr = 6 %), TRIP (Pr = 6 %) and EMBASE (Pr = 5 %). EMBASE contained the most unique records (n = 34). The Cochrane library identified seven unique records. The other databases held no unique records. CONCLUSIONS: The coverage of bibliographic databases varies considerably due to differences in their scope and content. Researchers wishing to identify systematic reviews should not rely on one database but search multiple databases

Toward a Deeper Understanding of Peer Athlete Mentoring in Sport: A Comprehensive Investigation

The benefits of mentoring for those who are mentored are well-documented in the organizational psychology literature (e.g., Eby et al., 2013). To a lesser degree, there is also evidence from organizational settings indicating that mentors benefit from being involved in mentoring relationships (e.g., Ghosh & Reio Jr., 2013). Despite the apparent advantages associated with mentorship, the explicit examination of peer mentoring relationships between athletes has only recently begun (e.g., Hoffmann & Loughead, 2016). Consequently, the central purpose of this dissertation was to gain a deeper understanding of peer athlete mentoring in sport. Three empirical research studies were conducted to address this objective. In Chapter 2, the experiences of elite, self-reported peer mentored athletes were explored via individual semi-structured interviews. The primary purpose of Chapter 2 was to identify the mentoring functions exhibited by athlete mentors. Briefly, the results pertaining to this purpose suggested that athlete mentors provided an assortment of specific mentoring functions to facilitate protégés’ progression through sport (instrumental mentoring) and development from a personal standpoint (psychosocial mentoring). The secondary purpose of Chapter 2 was to investigate the outcomes related to protégés’ mentoring experiences, the results of which highlighted that protégés benefitted in terms of enhanced performance and confidence, and also demonstrated a willingness to provide mentorship to their peers. The general objective of Chapter 3 was to develop a psychometrically sound questionnaire to measure peer athlete mentoring functions, using the results from Chapter 2 as the basis for the development of questionnaire items. The newly created 34-item, six-factor Athlete Mentoring Questionnaire (AMQ) was developed using a multi-phase approach that included a series of robust statistical analyses. Finally, using a case study design, the experiences of one former highly-regarded peer athlete mentor were explored in Chapter 4. Over multiple interviews, this individual indicated that he felt mentoring played a key role in an athlete’s ability to rise to elite sport. He suggested that he was motivated to mentor his protégés for their benefit but also for his own personal gains. Moreover, he described having an unwavering belief in and allegiance to his protégés and shared his views concerning the complexity of the ‘mentoring identity’ that he adopted. Overall, this former peer athlete mentor’s accounts suggest that he was involved in relational mentoring relationships. The findings from this dissertation shed light on the nature of peer athlete mentoring, have theoretical and practical implications, and offer several future research directions

Does a home disadvantage ever exist?

Throughout this book, evidence of a home advantage (HA) has been discussed across a range of sports, competitive levels, timeframes, and geographical regions. Indeed, the bulk of the extant research on the HA effect suggests that, overall, there is a benefit to competing at home versus away venues. Nonetheless, sport enthusiasts could likely point to several instances where home teams tend to perform worse than away teams. Are these merely examples of the adage that “the exception proves the rule” and simply part of the natural ebbs and flows of competition? Or, are there truly situations in sport whereby the advantage of competing at home disappears or even reverses to a home disadvantage? In this chapter, we attempt to dissect this area of research within the home (dis) advantage literature. We begin by highlighting the foundational work of Baumeister and Steinhilber, which proposed—-and appeared to provide initial evidence of—a home disadvantage. We then review the research that has been conducted since their initial work testing this phenomenon. Finally, we provide a series of considerations for future research that could help advance this area of study. To be clear, our goal in this chapter is not to convince readers that a HA in sport does not exist—such a contention would ignore the decades of evidence demonstrating that athletes and sport teams tend to perform better at their home venue. Instead, we aim to delve into the nuance that appears to exist in this home (dis) advantage effect

Psychometric Properties of the Adult Self-Report: Data from over 11,000 American Adults

The first purpose of this study was to examine the factor structure of the Adult Self-Report (ASR) via traditional confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and contemporary exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM). The second purpose was to examine the measurement invariance of the ASR subscales across age groups. We used baseline data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study. ASR data from 11,773 participants were used to conduct the CFA and ESEM analyses and data from 11,678 participants were used to conduct measurement invariance testing. Fit indices supported both the CFA and ESEM solutions, with the ESEM solution yielding better fit indices. However, several items in the ESEM solution did not sufficiently load on their intended factors and/or cross-loaded on unintended factors. Results from the measurement invariance analysis suggested that the ASR subscales are robust and fully invariant across subgroups of adults formed on the basis of age (18–35 years vs. 36–59 years). Future research should seek to both CFA and ESEM to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the ASR

Home Team (Dis)Advantage Patterns in the National Hockey League:Changes Through Increased Emphasis on Individual Performance with the 3-on-3 Overtime Rule

Past research examining National Hockey League (professional ice hockey; NHL) data from the 4-on-4 overtime era (seasons between 2005-06 and 2013-14) revealed an inconsistent home team (dis)advantage pattern (Hoffmann et al., 2017) such that home teams that were superior to their visiting counterparts had slightly greater odds of winning during regulation play compared to overtime (demonstrating home crowd advantages for team performance during regulation); in contrast, home teams experienced lower odds of winning in the shootout period than in overtime regardless of team quality (thereby demonstrating risks for individual choking from home crowd pressures). In this study, we explored the NHL home (dis)advantage pattern during four more recent seasons (2015-16 through 2018-19) in which the league instituted 3-on-3 play during overtime (perhaps increasing individual pressure for athletes competing in the 3-on-3 overtime period). We used archival data from the regular season (N = 5,002 games) to compare home teams’ odds of winning in regulation (with 5-on-5 skaters per team) to overtime (with 3-on-3) and in the shootout, adjusting for the quality of home and visiting teams. We conducted fixed-effects and multi-level logistic regression modeling. Evenly matched home teams were 1.66 times more likely to win than inferior home teams when games concluded in regulation versus overtime. Superior home teams were 4.24 times more likely to win than inferior home teams when games concluded in regulation rather than overtime. Thus, it is apparently more difficult for superior and evenly matched home teams to win in overtime than during regulation, suggesting that such home teams may be susceptible to choking in overtime. In contrast to the earlier 4-on-4 overtime era, home teams did not have lower odds of winning in the shootout compared to overtime. These results may have implications for NHL coaches’ and players’ tactical decision-making