Exact(5)
A number of studies contained duplicate populations: where there was duplication of the test and outcome measure the least complete study was excluded from the review.
Studies containing overlapping or duplicate populations were excluded prior to the completion of the data tables.
Criteria used to determine duplicate populations included study period, hospital, treatment information, and any additional inclusion criteria.
Duplicate populations were included in the analysis only if they were investigated with multiple molecular methods and/or tumor markers.
We excluded 49 articles for the following reasons: duplicate populations (N = 20), no data on outcome (case/control status or any of the studied phenotypic characteristics) or on MC1R variants (N = 12), case reports, commentaries or reviews (N = 6), GWAS (N = 6), populations selected for genetic factors (N = 4) and multiple primary melanoma cases only (N = 1).
Similar(55)
The Vital Statistics records with duplicate population registry records no matter whether there were PHNs or not, were defined as incorrect links.
We excluded studies that were on the duplicate population groups but were of lower quality, whose participants were drawn from a particular occupation or population, and that did not satisfy one or more inclusion criteria.
One of these 61 was excluded from meta-analysis of composite neonatal morbidity because it contained a duplicate population to another included study, 60 therefore the dataset to assess the association of arterial pH with a composite measure of morbidity included 30 studies with 10 904 infants.
The manuscripts were examined for duplicated populations.
All studies were carefully evaluated to identify duplicate patient populations.
Of the remaining 600 publications, 585 (97.5%) were excluded based on various exclusion criteria, 14 (2.3%) were duplicate study populations, and 1 (0.2%) was ineligible after contacting the author.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com