Endnote 5 x9

We exported the references retrieved from the searches into the Rayyan online tool.13 (link) Duplicates were removed automatically using the reference manager EndNote V.X9 (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, USA) and manually by one author (CS). Eligible reports applying a particular trial design were retrieved from the search strategies and screened by reviewers. Five reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts: one reviewer (CS) screened all the records and four reviewers (II-I, LMS-G, LSM and PJ) screened 25% of references each. Due to the involvement of many reviewers, we conducted a pilot screening using 56 articles (2.5%), corresponding to the articles published from 1 January 2020 to search date (7–8 April 2020), to verify whether all reviewers used the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. We retrieved full-text copies of potentially eligible reports for further assessment. Six reviewers independently confirmed the eligibility: one reviewer (CS) examined all full-text copies and five reviewers (IB, II-I, LMS-G, MMPS and SLM) assessed 20% of references each. Disagreements were solved by consensus or by involving a third expert reviewer (RP).

Two reviewers (R-TZ and L-WZ) will independently review and screen the studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the review. EndNote V.X9 (Clarivate Analytics, Pennsylvania) will be used to manage the search results from the abovementioned databases. Two reviewers (W-JS and L-WZ) will independently identify articles by title and abstract according to the inclusion criteria, and ineligible or duplicate studies will be excluded. Then, 2 reviewers (W-JS and L-WZ) will perform full-text screening of the remaining articles, and a third reviewer (R-TZ) will resolve any disagreement between the first 2 reviewers. The screening selection process is shown in Figure 1.

Records were retrieved from databases and imported into EndNote V.X9 (Clarivate Analytics). After the removal of duplicates, eligible studies were selected by two reviewers (AMA, MM) who independently conducted title and abstract screening of all retrieved studies against the predetermined eligibility criteria and categorised articles into ‘include’, ‘unsure’ (e.g., needs full text review) and ‘exclude’. Eligible full-text studies were screened by one reviewer (AMA) and the selection decision was confirmed by the second reviewer (MM). Any disagreement between the reviewers in the study selection process was resolved by discussion.

A combination of keywords, defined based on the inclusion criteria of the study, was used to find relevant studies from inception to April 2023. To find all related studies, no limitation was applied with regard to clinical conditions, participants, and publication date.
The search details in PubMed were as follows:
((pain[Title/Abstract] OR pain[MeSH Terms] OR ache[Title/Abstract] OR ache[MeSH Terms] OR analgesia[Title/Abstract] OR analgesia[MeSH Terms]) AND (binaural beat[Title/Abstract] OR binaural beats[Title/Abstract] OR binaural auditory beat[Title/Abstract] OR binaural beat entrainment[Title/Abstract] OR hemispheric synchronization[Title/Abstract])).The basic search was appropriately changed to optimize the strategy for other databases (S1 File). The reference management software EndNote V.X9 (Clarivate Analytics) was used for data management.