Cargando…

The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews

BACKGROUND: The usefulness of Google Scholar (GS) as a bibliographic database for biomedical systematic review (SR) searching is a subject of current interest and debate in research circles. Recent research has suggested GS might even be used alone in SR searching. This assertion is challenged here...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bramer, Wichor M, Giustini, Dean, Kramer, Bianca MR, Anderson, PF
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3882110/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24360284
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-115
_version_ 1782298315430297600
author Bramer, Wichor M
Giustini, Dean
Kramer, Bianca MR
Anderson, PF
author_facet Bramer, Wichor M
Giustini, Dean
Kramer, Bianca MR
Anderson, PF
author_sort Bramer, Wichor M
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The usefulness of Google Scholar (GS) as a bibliographic database for biomedical systematic review (SR) searching is a subject of current interest and debate in research circles. Recent research has suggested GS might even be used alone in SR searching. This assertion is challenged here by testing whether GS can locate all studies included in 21 previously published SRs. Second, it examines the recall of GS, taking into account the maximum number of items that can be viewed, and tests whether more complete searches created by an information specialist will improve recall compared to the searches used in the 21 published SRs. METHODS: The authors identified 21 biomedical SRs that had used GS and PubMed as information sources and reported their use of identical, reproducible search strategies in both databases. These search strategies were rerun in GS and PubMed, and analyzed as to their coverage and recall. Efforts were made to improve searches that underperformed in each database. RESULTS: GS’ overall coverage was higher than PubMed (98% versus 91%) and overall recall is higher in GS: 80% of the references included in the 21 SRs were returned by the original searches in GS versus 68% in PubMed. Only 72% of the included references could be used as they were listed among the first 1,000 hits (the maximum number shown). Practical precision (the number of included references retrieved in the first 1,000, divided by 1,000) was on average 1.9%, which is only slightly lower than in other published SRs. Improving searches with the lowest recall resulted in an increase in recall from 48% to 66% in GS and, in PubMed, from 60% to 85%. CONCLUSIONS: Although its coverage and precision are acceptable, GS, because of its incomplete recall, should not be used as a single source in SR searching. A specialized, curated medical database such as PubMed provides experienced searchers with tools and functionality that help improve recall, and numerous options in order to optimize precision. Searches for SRs should be performed by experienced searchers creating searches that maximize recall for as many databases as deemed necessary by the search expert.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3882110
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38821102014-01-07 The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews Bramer, Wichor M Giustini, Dean Kramer, Bianca MR Anderson, PF Syst Rev Methodology BACKGROUND: The usefulness of Google Scholar (GS) as a bibliographic database for biomedical systematic review (SR) searching is a subject of current interest and debate in research circles. Recent research has suggested GS might even be used alone in SR searching. This assertion is challenged here by testing whether GS can locate all studies included in 21 previously published SRs. Second, it examines the recall of GS, taking into account the maximum number of items that can be viewed, and tests whether more complete searches created by an information specialist will improve recall compared to the searches used in the 21 published SRs. METHODS: The authors identified 21 biomedical SRs that had used GS and PubMed as information sources and reported their use of identical, reproducible search strategies in both databases. These search strategies were rerun in GS and PubMed, and analyzed as to their coverage and recall. Efforts were made to improve searches that underperformed in each database. RESULTS: GS’ overall coverage was higher than PubMed (98% versus 91%) and overall recall is higher in GS: 80% of the references included in the 21 SRs were returned by the original searches in GS versus 68% in PubMed. Only 72% of the included references could be used as they were listed among the first 1,000 hits (the maximum number shown). Practical precision (the number of included references retrieved in the first 1,000, divided by 1,000) was on average 1.9%, which is only slightly lower than in other published SRs. Improving searches with the lowest recall resulted in an increase in recall from 48% to 66% in GS and, in PubMed, from 60% to 85%. CONCLUSIONS: Although its coverage and precision are acceptable, GS, because of its incomplete recall, should not be used as a single source in SR searching. A specialized, curated medical database such as PubMed provides experienced searchers with tools and functionality that help improve recall, and numerous options in order to optimize precision. Searches for SRs should be performed by experienced searchers creating searches that maximize recall for as many databases as deemed necessary by the search expert. BioMed Central 2013-12-23 /pmc/articles/PMC3882110/ /pubmed/24360284 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-115 Text en Copyright © 2013 Bramer et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Methodology
Bramer, Wichor M
Giustini, Dean
Kramer, Bianca MR
Anderson, PF
The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews
title The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews
title_full The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews
title_fullStr The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews
title_full_unstemmed The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews
title_short The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews
title_sort comparative recall of google scholar versus pubmed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews
topic Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3882110/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24360284
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-2-115
work_keys_str_mv AT bramerwichorm thecomparativerecallofgooglescholarversuspubmedinidenticalsearchesforbiomedicalsystematicreviewsareviewofsearchesusedinsystematicreviews
AT giustinidean thecomparativerecallofgooglescholarversuspubmedinidenticalsearchesforbiomedicalsystematicreviewsareviewofsearchesusedinsystematicreviews
AT kramerbiancamr thecomparativerecallofgooglescholarversuspubmedinidenticalsearchesforbiomedicalsystematicreviewsareviewofsearchesusedinsystematicreviews
AT andersonpf thecomparativerecallofgooglescholarversuspubmedinidenticalsearchesforbiomedicalsystematicreviewsareviewofsearchesusedinsystematicreviews
AT bramerwichorm comparativerecallofgooglescholarversuspubmedinidenticalsearchesforbiomedicalsystematicreviewsareviewofsearchesusedinsystematicreviews
AT giustinidean comparativerecallofgooglescholarversuspubmedinidenticalsearchesforbiomedicalsystematicreviewsareviewofsearchesusedinsystematicreviews
AT kramerbiancamr comparativerecallofgooglescholarversuspubmedinidenticalsearchesforbiomedicalsystematicreviewsareviewofsearchesusedinsystematicreviews
AT andersonpf comparativerecallofgooglescholarversuspubmedinidenticalsearchesforbiomedicalsystematicreviewsareviewofsearchesusedinsystematicreviews