Google Scholar Versus PubMed in Locating Primary Literature to Answer Drug-Related Questions
Google Scholar Versus PubMed in Locating Primary Literature to Answer Drug-Related Questions
复制标题
DOI：
10.1345/aph.1l223
复制
发表时间：
2009-03-01
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Woolley, Thomas W.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Freeman, Maisha Kelly;Lauderdale, Stacy A.;Woolley, Thomas W.
背景：在数据库最初发布后，Google Scholar链接到生物医学期刊网站的访问者比PubMed更多；然而，它在定位主要文献文章方面的有用性尚不清楚。目的：评估两个数据库中主要文献目标文章的可用性；总引文量；免费全文期刊文章的可用性；以及在搜索结果的前100个引文中按年份检索的主要文献目标文章的数量。方法：以发表在药物治疗年鉴药物信息查房栏上的药物信息问题综述为目标，确定Google Scholar和PubMed搜索的检索能力。2006年1月至2007年6月在本栏目中发表的综述符合纳入研究的条件。结果：33篇符合纳入标准的药物信息查房文献中有22篇(67%)符合纳入标准。每篇文章中主要文献的中位数为6.5篇(IQR 4.8，8.3；平均数+/-SD 8+/-5.4)。在Google Scholar和PubMed搜索中，位于前100条引文中的目标主要文献的平均数量没有显著差异(5.1vs5.3+-3.9vs5.3+/-3.3vs5.3+/-3.3vs5.3+/-3.3；p=0.868)。谷歌学者搜索的总结果多于PubMed(2211.6+/-3999.5比44.2+/-47.4；p=0.019)。每个药物信息轮文章的免费全文期刊文章在数据库之间的可用性相似(1.8vs2.3+/-1.7vs2.3+/-1.7；p=0.325)。与PubMed相比，2000年以前发表的主要文献的检索率更高(62.8%比34.9%；p=0.017)；而2000年以后发表的文献在数据库中的检索率差异无统计学意义(66.4vs77.1；p=0.074)。PubMed搜索得到的总引文量比Google Scholar结果少；然而，在查找相关主要文献文章方面，PubMed似乎比Google Scholar更具体。
BACKGROUND: Google Scholar linked more visitors to biomedical journal Web sites than did PubMed after the database's initial release; however, its usefulness in locating primary literature articles is unknown.OBJECTIVE: To assess in both databases the availability of primary literature target articles; total number of citations; availability of free, full-text journal articles; and number of primary literature target articles retrieved by year within the first 100 citations of the search results.METHODS: Drug information question reviews published in The Annals of Pharmacotherapy Drug Information Rounds column served as targets to determine the retrieval ability of Google Scholar and PubMed searches. Reviews printed in this column from January 2006 to June 2007 were eligible for study inclusion. Articles were chosen if at least 2 key words of the printed article were included in the PubMed Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) database, and these terms were searched in both databases.RESULTS: Twenty-two of 33 (67%) eligible Drug Information Rounds articles met the inclusion criteria. The median number of primary literature articles used in each of these articles was 6.5 (IQR 4.8, 8.3; mean +/- SD 8 +/- 5.4). No significant differences were found for the mean number of target primary literature articles located within the first 100 citations in Google Scholar and PubMed searches (5.1 +/- 3.9 vs 5.3 +/- 3.3; p = 0.868). Google Scholar searches located more total results than PubMed (2211.6 +/- 3999.5 vs 44.2 +/- 47.4; p = 0.019). The availability of free, full-text journal articles per Drug Information Rounds article was similar between the databases (1.8 +/- 1.7 vs 2.3 +/- 1.7; p = 0.325). More primary literature articles published prior to 2000 were located with Google Scholar searches compared with PubMed (62.8% vs 34.9%; p = 0.017); however, no statistically significant differences between the databases were observed for articles published after 2000 (66.4 vs 77.1; p = 0.074).CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were identified in the number of target primary literature articles located between databases. PubMed searches yielded fewer total citations than Google Scholar results; however, PubMed appears to be more specific than Google Scholar for locating relevant primary literature articles.