Cited by 50Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsscientometrics and bibliometrics researchInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

Identifying evidence for public health guidance: a comparison of citation searching with Web of Science and Google Scholar

Levay, Paul, Ainsworth, Nicola, Kettle, Rachel, Morgan, Antony·2016·Research Synthesis Methods

Abstract

Aim: To examine how effectively forwards citation searching with Web of Science (WOS) or Google Scholar (GS) identified evidence to support public health guidance published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Method: Forwards citation searching was performed using GS on a base set of 46 publications and replicated using WOS. Outcomes: WOS and GS were compared in terms of recall; precision; number needed to read (NNR); administrative time and costs; and screening time and costs. Outcomes for all publications were compared with those for a subset of highly important publications. Results: The searches identified 43 relevant publications. The WOS process had 86.05% recall and 1.58% precision. The GS process had 90.7% recall and 1.62% precision. The NNR to identify one relevant publication was 63.3 with WOS and 61.72 with GS. There were nine highly important publications. WOS had 100% recall, 0.38% precision and NNR of 260.22. GS had 88.89% recall, 0.33% precision and NNR of 300.88. Administering the WOS results took 4 h and cost £88–£136, compared with 75 h and £1650–£2550 with GS. Conclusion: WOS is recommended over GS, as citation searching was more effective, while the administrative and screening times and costs were lower. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jrsm.1158

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Levay, P., Ainsworth, N., Kettle, R., & Morgan, A.
Affiliations
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (GB)
Corresponding author
Levay, Paul
Venue
Research Synthesis Methods
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-07-03
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
34-45
ISSN
  • 1759-2879 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-2887
OpenAlex
W1506760053
Cited by
50
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1
FWCI
4.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Research Synthesis Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
citation searching, Web of Science, Google Scholar, public health recommendations, NICE guidelines, evidence identification, search precision and recall, number needed to read, bibliographic database comparison
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Ethnicity, Humans, Public Health, Publications, Review Literature as Topic, Science, Reproducibility of Results, Body Mass Index, Databases, Bibliographic, Information Storage and Retrieval, Evidence-Based Medicine, Internet, Waist Circumference

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review