EndNote is a long-established reference manager that many systematic reviewers rely on to gather every record from their database searches, store and rename the attached full-text files, remove duplicates, and export a clean set to a screening tool. Its strengths for review work are mature deduplication, capable management of large libraries with many attached files, and the fact that a great many universities standardise on it, so colleagues, supervisors, and librarians can all open the same library. It is a paid desktop product with a more limited free web version, and it sits in the reference-and-tidy stage of a review rather than the screening stage.
Where EndNote fits in a review
A systematic review searches several databases, and all of those records have to land in one place before screening begins. EndNote is built for exactly that consolidation: import each database export, deduplicate the combined set, attach and organise the full-text files, and then export the unique records onward. It is the reference layer, not the decision layer, so it complements rather than replaces a screening platform. Positioning it this way matters, because EndNote does not run the blinded two-reviewer process a screen requires; that happens in a dedicated tool after the library leaves EndNote. The wider sequence is laid out in our guide to the steps in a systematic review.
Importing a search and using groups
EndNote imports the standard formats every bibliographic database produces, including RIS and direct export filters tuned to specific databases, so a search result set moves into the library cleanly. The organising unit is the group: a way to collect references without duplicating the underlying records. A practical setup for a review is one group per database for the raw imports and a combined group for the deduplicated set, which keeps the provenance of every record visible. Group sets let you nest those groups, and smart groups build dynamic membership from a rule, for example every record added after a certain date. Keeping the original export from each source is part of properly documenting a search strategy, and EndNote’s groups make that provenance easy to maintain.
Strong deduplication and full-text management
EndNote’s deduplication is one of the main reasons reviewers reach for it. It matches records on configurable fields, lets you choose which fields define a duplicate, and presents the matches for review before removal, which gives more control than a one-click merge. As with any tool it is conservative on the awkward cases, so the reliable habit is to run the automated pass and then scan the remainder for near duplicates that differ only in punctuation or a truncated title; the principles are the same ones in our guide to deduplicating search results. EndNote also manages the full-text files well: it can try to find and attach files to records, rename them consistently, and keep a large library of attachments organised, which is valuable once a review reaches dozens or hundreds of full texts at the full-text screening stage.
Exporting to a screening tool
Once the library is deduplicated, EndNote exports the whole set or a chosen group to RIS or another standard format that screening platforms accept, so the records flow into the tool where reviewers will actually decide. This is the natural hand-off, because dedicated platforms add the things a reference manager cannot: blinded dual screening, conflict tracking, and a record of who decided what. Our overview of systematic review screening tools describes those features, and the exported file is what seeds the title and abstract screening pass.
The paid desktop product versus the free web version
EndNote is a commercial product. The full desktop application is paid, usually bought outright or supplied to staff and students through a university site licence, and it carries the powerful deduplication, group management, and offline file handling that review work depends on. There is also a free web version with a smaller storage allowance and a reduced feature set; it is fine for light reference management and for sharing, but it does not match the desktop product for the demanding deduplication and large-library handling a systematic review needs. Because precise allowances and prices change over time, confirm the current terms rather than relying on a remembered figure. For most serious reviews the deciding factor is access to the desktop version, which is exactly why institutional standardisation matters so much.
Citing the included studies while you write
Reference management is only half of what EndNote does for a review; the other half arrives once the synthesis is written up. The Cite While You Write add-in installs into your word processor and lets you insert in-text citations from the library and build the reference list as you draft. For a systematic review this matters more than for an ordinary paper, because the manuscript may cite a hundred or more included studies and several methodological references, and doing that by hand is both slow and error prone. Inserting each citation from the library guarantees that every in-text marker has a matching entry in the bibliography, and switching the output style reformats the whole document at once when you move between target journals. Two cautions keep this clean in practice. First, keep one master library for the review rather than several partial ones, so a citation never points at a record that lives in a file a co-author does not have. Second, when you hand the manuscript to colleagues, share the library or use the travelling-library feature so the formatted field codes resolve on their machines. This writing-stage support is the last EndNote step in a project, after the search, screening, and drafting the systematic review itself are under way.
Why many institutions standardise on EndNote
Universities and research libraries often pick one reference manager to support across the whole organisation, and EndNote is a frequent choice for reasons that compound in a review. A site licence means every member can use the full product without a personal purchase. Shared training and library support mean a researcher who gets stuck can find help. And a common tool means supervisors and collaborators can open one another’s libraries without conversion friction. None of this makes EndNote the only sound option, and the free alternatives are excellent for many teams; our comparison of the main citation managers weighs the trade-offs, and our companion guide to using Zotero in a review workflow covers the leading free contender for reviewers without an EndNote licence.