Citation Searches Are More Sensitive than Keyword Searches to Identify Studies Using Specific Measurement Instruments
Open accessAbstract
Objectives To compare the effectiveness of two search methods in identifying studies that used the Control Preferences Scale (CPS), a health care decision-making instrument commonly used in clinical settings.Study design and setting We searched the literature using two methods: (1) keyword searching using variations of "Control Preferences Scale" and (2) cited reference searching using two seminal CPS publications. We searched three bibliographic databases [PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (WOS)] and one full-text database (Google Scholar). We report precision and sensitivity as measures of effectiveness.Results Keyword searches in bibliographic databases yielded high average precision (90%) but low average sensitivity (16%). PubMed was the most precise, followed closely by Scopus and WOS. The Google Scholar keyword search had low precision (54%) but provided the highest sensitivity (70%). Cited reference searches in all databases yielded moderate sensitivity (45-54%), but precision ranged from 35% to 75% with Scopus being the most precise.Conclusion Cited reference searches were more sensitive than keyword searches, making it a more comprehensive strategy to identify all studies that use a particular instrument. Keyword searches provide a quick way of finding some but not all relevant articles. Goals, time, and resources should dictate the combination of which methods and databases are used.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Reference searches retrieve approximately three times more results than keyword searches.
“However, for both WoS and Scopus, cited-reference search was shown to be the most suitable when a maximal count of relevant results is required, since reference searches have retrieved approximately three-times more results when compared to keyword searches [83].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [83]
For both WoS and Scopus, cited-reference search is the most suitable when a maximal count of relevant results is required.
“However, for both WoS and Scopus, cited-reference search was shown to be the most suitable when a maximal count of relevant results is required, since reference searches have retrieved approximately three-times more results when compared to keyword searches [83].”
From Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World (2021) · cites this paper as [83]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 36 · Cited by 63
- Authors
- Linder, S. K., Kamath, G. R., Pratt, G. F., Saraykar, S. S., & Volk, R. J.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (US)
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Volk, Robert J.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-04
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 412-417
- ISSN
- 0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4593621
- OpenAlex
- W2006226922
- Cited by
- 63
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 3.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R24HS022134)
- National Cancer Institute (R21CA132669)
- 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
- cited reference searching, keyword search, bibliographic database searching, Control Preferences Scale, search precision, Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science
- MeSH terms
- Abstracting and Indexing, Decision Support Techniques, Humans, Databases, Bibliographic, Databases, Factual, Information Storage and Retrieval, Internet, PubMed
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
