The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews.
The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/2046-4053-2-115
复制
发表时间：
2013-12-23
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Anderson P
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bramer WM;Giustini D;Kramer BM;Anderson P
Google Scholar（GS）作为生物医学系统性综述（SR）搜索的书目数据库的有用性是研究界当前感兴趣和争论的主题。最近的研究表明，GS甚至可以单独用于SR搜索。通过检验GS是否可以找到21份先前发表的SR中包含的所有研究，对这一论断提出了质疑。其次，它检查了召回的GS，考虑到最大数量的项目，可以查看，并测试是否更完整的搜索创建的信息专家将提高召回相比，在21个已公布的SR中使用的搜索。作者确定了21个使用GS和PubMed作为信息来源的生物医学SR，并报告了他们在两个数据库中使用的相同、可重复的检索策略。这些搜索策略在GS和PubMed中进行了检索，并对其覆盖率和召回率进行了分析。已作出努力，改进每个数据库中检索不佳的检索。GS的总体覆盖率高于PubMed（98%对91%），GS的总体召回率更高：21份SR中包含的80%的参考文献是通过GS中的原始检索返回的，而PubMed中的比例为68%。只有72%的参考文献可以使用，因为它们被列在前1，000次点击中（显示的最大数量）。实际精确度（前1,000篇中检索到的纳入参考文献数除以1,000）平均为1.9%，仅略低于其他已发表的SR。改进具有最低召回率的搜索导致GS的召回率从48%增加到66%，而PubMed则从60%增加到85%。虽然它的覆盖率和精度是可以接受的，GS，因为它的不完全召回，不应该被用作单一的源在SR搜索。专业的，精心策划的医学数据库，如PubMed，为经验丰富的搜索者提供了有助于提高召回率的工具和功能，以及众多选项，以优化精度。SR的检索应由经验丰富的检索人员进行，检索专家认为必要时，应尽可能多地检索数据库，以最大限度地提高召回率。
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. 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. 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%. 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.