Endnote 5 x8

After the search, all identified studies were uploaded and de‐duplicated in EndNote VX8 (Clarivate Analytics, PA, USA). Covidence systematic review software (Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia) was used for screening and full‐text review. See eMethods (Supporting Information) for a list of Ovid and PubMed MEDLINE search strategy. Through Covidence, a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram was generated with the number of results found, number excluded during title/abstract screening, and number excluded during full‐text assessments and methodological appraisals, along with reasons for exclusion. Other sources searched included ClinicalTrials.gov (United States National Library of Medicine) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, <http://www.who.int/ictrp/en/>).
Additional details on the systematic review protocol are already published (https://journals.lww.com/jbisrir/Fulltext/2019/10000/Duration_and_determinants_of_Chagas_latency__an.9.aspx). Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42019118019.

All identified citations were collated and uploaded to EndNote (V.X8; Clarivate Analytics, London, UK) to remove duplicate reports. Titles and abstracts were screened by two independent reviewers (SZ and XZ) to assess whether the inclusion criteria were met. Full-text versions of the selected studies were retrieved and assessed in detail against the inclusion criteria; those that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded, and the reasons for exclusion are summarised in the flowchart. Studies selected for inclusion were critically appraised. The search results are presented in a PRISMA flow diagram. Disagreements between the researchers were resolved through discussion or by discussion with a third researcher (KL).