Cargando…
Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources
Rigorous evidence identification is essential for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (evidence syntheses) because the sample selection of relevant studies determines a review's outcome, validity, and explanatory power. Yet, the search systems allowing access to this evidence provide varying l...
Autores principales: | Gusenbauer, Michael, Haddaway, Neal R. |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7079055/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31614060 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378 |
Ejemplares similares
-
Commentary to Gusenbauer and Haddaway 2020: Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar and PubMed
por: Klopfenstein, D. V., et al.
Publicado: (2020) -
Retrieving Clinical Evidence: A Comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar for Quick Clinical Searches
por: Shariff, Salimah Z, et al.
Publicado: (2013) -
Exploring PubMed as a reliable resource for scholarly communications services
por: Ossom Williamson, Peace, et al.
Publicado: (2019) -
Literature search on risk factors for sarcoma: PubMed and Google Scholar may be complementary sources
por: Mastrangelo, Giuseppe, et al.
Publicado: (2010) -
Diagnostics Now in PubMed and PubMed Central
por: Kjaer, Andreas
Publicado: (2016)