Is the coverage of google scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews
نویسندگان
چکیده
BACKGROUND In searches for clinical trials and systematic reviews, it is said that Google Scholar (GS) should never be used in isolation, but in addition to PubMed, Cochrane, and other trusted sources of information. We therefore performed a study to assess the coverage of GS specifically for the studies included in systematic reviews and evaluate if GS was sensitive enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. METHODS All the original studies included in 29 systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database Syst Rev or in the JAMA in 2009 were gathered in a gold standard database. GS was searched for all these studies one by one to assess the percentage of studies which could have been identified by searching only GS. RESULTS All the 738 original studies included in the gold standard database were retrieved in GS (100%). CONCLUSION The coverage of GS for the studies included in the systematic reviews is 100%. If the authors of the 29 systematic reviews had used only GS, no reference would have been missed. With some improvement in the research options, to increase its precision, GS could become the leading bibliographic database in medicine and could be used alone for systematic reviews.
منابع مشابه
Google Scholar is not enough to be used alone for systematic reviews
BACKGROUND Google Scholar (GS) has been noted for its ability to search broadly for important references in the literature. Gehanno et al. recently examined GS in their study: 'Is Google scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews?' In this paper, we revisit this important question, and some of Gehanno et al.'s other findings in evaluating the academic search engine. METHODS The au...
متن کاملGoogle Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough
BACKGROUND Recent research indicates a high recall in Google Scholar searches for systematic reviews. These reports raised high expectations of Google Scholar as a unified and easy to use search interface. However, studies on the coverage of Google Scholar rarely used the search interface in a realistic approach but instead merely checked for the existence of gold standard references. In additi...
متن کاملارزیابی کیفیت گزارش مطالعات مرور نظاممند و فراتحلیل در مجلات پرستاری و مامایی ایران
Background & Aim: In the view of the importance of evidence-based clinical practice in recent years, clinical disciplines such as nursing and midwifery have found a special need to systematic review and meta-analysis. However, systematic reviews and meta-analysises like any other studies may be poorly designed and implemented. Therefore, certain guidelines have been considered for reporting of ...
متن کاملOptimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study
BACKGROUND Within systematic reviews, when searching for relevant references, it is advisable to use multiple databases. However, searching databases is laborious and time-consuming, as syntax of search strategies are database specific. We aimed to determine the optimal combination of databases needed to conduct efficient searches in systematic reviews and whether the current practice in publis...
متن کاملComparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study
BACKGROUND Previously, we reported on the low recall of Google Scholar (GS) for systematic review (SR) searching. Here, we test our conclusions further in a prospective study by comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of SR search strategies previously performed in Embase, MEDLINE, and GS. METHODS The original search results from Embase and MEDLINE and the first 1000 results of GS for l...
متن کامل