Literature search on risk factors for sarcoma: PubMed and Google Scholar may be complementary sources.
Literature search on risk factors for sarcoma: PubMed and Google Scholar may be complementary sources.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1756-0500-3-131
复制
发表时间：
2010-05-10
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Cegolon, Luca
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mastrangelo, Giuseppe;Fadda, Emanuela;Cegolon, Luca
背景技术背景：在专门研究肉瘤的欧洲网络范围内，通过检索PubMed和Google Scholar（这两个信息存储和检索数据库可以免费访问）收集了有关肉瘤风险因素的相关文献。本研究旨在评估PubMed和Google Scholar.FINDINGS的相对熟练程度：与PubMed不同，Google Scholar不允许在“人类”和“动物”研究之间进行选择，也不允许在“经典”和其他类型的研究之间进行选择。因此，使用Google Scholar进行的搜索产生了大量必须过滤的引用。Google Scholar的敏感性较高（符合检索标准的相关文章比例），而PubMed的特异性较高（未检索到的不符合标准的低质量文章比例）。Google Scholar与PubMed的一致性仅为8%。结论：本研究仅关注一个主题。虽然进一步的研究是必要的，PM和GS似乎是互补的，他们的整合可以大大提高在医学研究中的参考文献的搜索。
BACKGROUND: Within the context of a European network dedicated to the study of sarcoma the relevant literature on sarcoma risk factors was collected by searching PubMed and Google Scholar, the two information storage and retrieval databases which can be accessed without charge. The present study aims to appraise the relative proficiency of PubMed and Google Scholar.FINDINGS: Unlike PubMed, Google Scholar does not allow a choice between "Human" and "Animal" studies, nor between "Classical" and other types of studies. As a result, searches with Google Scholar produced high numbers of citations that have to be filtered. Google Scholar resulted in a higher sensitivity (proportion of relevant articles, meeting the search criteria), while PubMed in a higher specificity (proportion of lower quality articles not meeting the criteria, that are not retrieved). Concordance between Google Scholar and PubMed was as low as 8%.CONCLUSIONS: This study focused just on one topic. Although further studies are warranted, PM and GS appear to be complementary and their integration could greatly improve the search of references in medical research.