Bramer Method for Deduplication in EndNote: A Validated Multi-Step Workflow

Mayta
Sep 12
3 min read

Introduction: Why Deduplication Matters

Systematic reviews live or die by rigor—and that starts with your reference list. If duplicate studies aren’t removed correctly, your review may double-count evidence, skew screening workloads, or worse, mislead conclusions. Fortunately, there's a gold-standard solution: the Bramer method, a validated, stepwise deduplication strategy in EndNote that goes far beyond the default “Find Duplicates” button.

🚥 The Multi-Step Deduplication Workflow

Here’s the general structure of Bramer’s method, applied iteratively in your EndNote reference library. You start strict and precise—then gradually loosen criteria to catch harder-to-spot duplicates.

Step	Field Matching Criteria
1	Author, Year, Title, Journal
2	Author, Year, Title, Pages
3	Title, Journal, Pages
4	Year, Title, Pages
5	Title, Pages
6	Author, Year, Journal, Pages
7	Author, Year, Title
8	Author, Year, Journal
9	Author, Year
10	Year, Title
11	Title

Each pass removes increasingly subtle duplicates, catching what the default EndNote deduplication would miss—such as records with missing volume numbers, inconsistent author formatting, or journal name variations.

🧪 Why This Method Works: Evidence & Validation

This is not just a clever hack—it's backed by robust literature.

🔹 Bramer et al. (2016)

Wichor Bramer and colleagues introduced this method in a landmark study that showed how the iterative approach significantly reduces false positives and negatives. Their results demonstrate that the first few strict steps eliminate obvious duplicates, while the later stages catch elusive ones with minimal manual effort.

“Using this multi-step strategy significantly reduces the time and error rate of deduplication... with only a small subset requiring manual checking.” — Bramer et al., 2016

🔹 Kwon et al. (2015)

Kwon and colleagues compared multiple citation managers and found that EndNote’s default tool performed the worst. They specifically endorse supplementing EndNote with manual or semi-automated methods like the Bramer strategy to avoid under-deduplication and ensure review quality.

“EndNote’s built-in tool had the highest number of both false negatives and false positives.” — Kwon et al., 2015

🔹 Rathbone et al. (2015)

This study evaluated a specialist tool (SRA-DM) and highlighted how EndNote's default deduplication lacks sensitivity and specificity. It reinforces the need for structured, multi-criteria methods like Bramer’s for comprehensive review integrity.

“Systematic Review Assistant outperformed EndNote, highlighting the latter’s limitations for accurate deduplication.” — Rathbone et al., 2015

🔹 Qi et al. (2013)

Qi’s findings emphasize that inconsistencies in journal names, punctuation, and author formats often defeat single-pass algorithms. The multi-step Bramer strategy addresses these inconsistencies systematically, using diverse field combinations.

“Single-field deduplication misses many records due to format inconsistencies across databases.” — Qi et al., 2013

🧩 Aligns with PRISMA and Cochrane Standards

Deduplication isn't just a quality issue—it's a reporting requirement.

PRISMA guidelines explicitly require authors to report how many duplicates were removed.
Cochrane Handbook mandates thorough, reproducible deduplication across multiple sources.

The Bramer method delivers both completeness and reproducibility, making it the ethical and scientific choice for high-stakes reviews.

🧠 Summary Table: Bramer-Validated Deduplication

Database	Results (Before)	Results (After)	Deduplicated in EndNote
PubMed
EMBASE
Scopus
Total	X	Y	Z

Always log these values in your PRISMA flow diagram.

✅ Key Takeaways

The Bramer Method is the most validated, efficient, and reproducible way to deduplicate citations in EndNote.
It uses a stepwise field-matching logic, progressing from strict to relaxed criteria.
Backed by Bramer et al. (2016), Kwon et al. (2015), Rathbone et al. (2015), and Qi et al. (2013).
Aligns with PRISMA and Cochrane systematic review standards.
Saves time, reduces error, and enhances review credibility.