Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study.
Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: a prospective study.
复制标题
比较在Embase，Medline和Google Scholar：一项前瞻性研究中对120个系统评价进行搜索的覆盖范围，召回和精确度。
DOI：
10.1186/s13643-016-0215-7
复制
发表时间：
2016-03-01
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Kramer BM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bramer WM;Giustini D;Kramer BM
此前，我们报道了谷歌学者(GS)系统回顾(SR)搜索的召回率较低。在这里，我们在一项前瞻性研究中进一步测试我们的结论，通过比较以前在Embase、MEDLINE和GS中执行的SR搜索策略的覆盖率、召回率和精确度。记录了Embase和MEDLINE的原始检索结果和GS的前1000个馆员中介SR检索结果。一旦结果SR的纳入-排除过程完成，就会对所有三个数据库的搜索结果进行筛选，以寻找SR包含的参考文献。随后对所有三个数据库进行了临时搜索，以查找原始搜索结果中未找到的参考资料。我们对照原始搜索结果检查了来自120个SRS的4795条包含的参考文献。GS的覆盖率很高(97.2%)，但略低于Embase和MEDLINE的总和(97.5%)。Medline本身实现了92.3%的覆盖率。对于所有纳入的参考文献，Embase/MEDLINE的总召回率为81.6%，而GS的召回率为72.8%，MEDLINE的召回率为72.6%。然而，在GS收录的前1000篇参考文献中，只有46.4%的参考文献是可下载的。在检查每个SR的数据时，传统数据库的召回率要好于GS，即使考虑到列出的参考文献超过了前1000个搜索结果。最后，GS的前1000篇参考文献的精确度与Embase和MEDLINE的检索总和相当。尽管对于许多搜索来说，GS的总体覆盖率和召回率都很高，但该数据库并没有像一些研究人员在之前的研究中发现的那样实现完全覆盖。此外，只能查看GS中的前1000条记录会严重降低其召回率。如果GS允许浏览前1000条以上的记录，其召回率将会增加，但还不足以单独用于SR搜索。筛选结果所需的时间也将大大增加。这些结果支持了我们的断言，即GS和其他被调查的数据库中的任何一个都不是独立的、可以接受的支持系统综述搜索的数据库。本文的在线版本(doi：10.1186/s13643-0160215-7)包含补充材料，授权用户可以使用。
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. The original search results from Embase and MEDLINE and the first 1000 results of GS for librarian-mediated SR searches were recorded. Once the inclusion-exclusion process for the resulting SR was complete, search results from all three databases were screened for the SR’s included references. All three databases were then searched post hoc for included references not found in the original search results. We checked 4795 included references from 120 SRs against the original search results. Coverage of GS was high (97.2 %) but marginally lower than Embase and MEDLINE combined (97.5 %). MEDLINE on its own achieved 92.3 % coverage. Total recall of Embase/MEDLINE combined was 81.6 % for all included references, compared to GS at 72.8 % and MEDLINE alone at 72.6 %. However, only 46.4 % of the included references were among the downloadable first 1000 references in GS. When examining data for each SR, the traditional databases’ recall was better than GS, even when taking into account included references listed beyond the first 1000 search results. Finally, precision of the first 1000 references of GS is comparable to searches in Embase and MEDLINE combined. Although overall coverage and recall of GS are high for many searches, the database does not achieve full coverage as some researchers found in previous research. Further, being able to view only the first 1000 records in GS severely reduces its recall percentages. If GS would enable the browsing of records beyond the first 1000, its recall would increase but not sufficiently to be used alone in SR searching. Time needed to screen results would also increase considerably. These results support our assertion that neither GS nor one of the other databases investigated, is on its own, an acceptable database to support systematic review searching. The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0215-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.