The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.
Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Recent research indicates a high recall in Google Scholar searches for systematic reviews. These reports raised high expectations of Google Scholar as a unified and easy to use search interface. However, studies on the coverage of Google Scholar rarely used the search interface in a realistic approach but instead merely checked for the existence of gold standard references. In addition, the severe limitations of the Google Search interface must be taken into consideration when comparing with professional literature retrieval tools.The objectives of this work are to measure the relative recall and precision of searches with Google Scholar under conditions which are derived from structured search procedures conventional in scientific literature retrieval; and to provide an overview of current advantages and disadvantages of the Google Scholar search interface in scientific literature retrieval. METHODS: General and MEDLINE-specific search strategies were retrieved from 14 Cochrane systematic reviews. Cochrane systematic review search strategies were translated to Google Scholar search expression as good as possible under consideration of the original search semantics. The references of the included studies from the Cochrane reviews were checked for their inclusion in the result sets of the Google Scholar searches. Relative recall and precision were calculated. RESULTS: We investigated Cochrane reviews with a number of included references between 11 and 70 with a total of 396 references. The Google Scholar searches resulted in sets between 4,320 and 67,800 and a total of 291,190 hits. The relative recall of the Google Scholar searches had a minimum of 76.2% and a maximum of 100% (7 searches). The precision of the Google Scholar searches had a minimum of 0.05% and a maximum of 0.92%. The overall relative recall for all searches was 92.9%, the overall precision was 0.13%. CONCLUSION: The reported relative recall must be interpreted with care. It is a quality indicator of Google Scholar confined to an experimental setting which is unavailable in systematic retrieval due to the severe limitations of the Google Scholar search interface. Currently, Google Scholar does not provide necessary elements for systematic scientific literature retrieval such as tools for incremental query optimization, export of a large number of references, a visual search builder or a history function. Google Scholar is not ready as a professional searching tool for tasks where structured retrieval methodology is necessary.
Overview
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
Verification
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“This research thus fills a need for support in the choice of search system, currently lacking in evidence‐synthesis methodology, and follows calls for comparative studies on the effectiveness of search systems25 or the “need to develop ‘bias profiles’ for search engines.”( 35 , p1193)”
From Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources (2020) · cites this paper as [25]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Giustini and Boulos [14] found that 5% of studies from a systematic review could not be identified using specific searches in Google Scholar, whilst Boeker et al. [11] found that up to 34% of studies from 14 systematic reviews were missed.”
From The role of google scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching (2015) · cites this paper as [11]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Quality criteria have previously been used to evaluate search systems in terms of recall and precision indicating their suitability of search in general and systematic search in particular.”
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Our findings support the criticism of Bramer et al,33 Bramer et al,34 and Boeker et al25 and indicate that Google Scholar's coverage and recall is an inadequate reason to use it as principal search system in systematic searches.53”
In the citing paper
“The ability of a reviewer to manipulate their search query depends on the capabilities of a search system and thus they significantly influence recall and precision.25”
In the citing paper
“Nevertheless, overall, Google Scholar's search precision has been found to be significantly lower than 1% for systematic searches.25”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 · Cited by 28,164 · cited 1×
“In a continuing discussion and agreement process, the information science and the scientific literature retrieval communities have developed methods and standards which aim for a high level of quality in literature retrieval and reporting [14-18].”
BackgroundCochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Tarsilla, M. (2010) · Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation · doi:10.56645/jmde.v6i14.284 · Cited by 5,232
Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses
Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. I., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008) · The FASEB Journal · doi:10.1096/fj.07-9492lsf · Cited by 5,039 · cited 1×
“This technology known as autonomous citation indexing, is also applied to the Web of Knowledge and Scopus, however, with differing results [37,38].”
ResultA catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research
Simera, I., Moher, D., Hoey, J., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2010) · European Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2362.2009.02234.x · Cited by 1,047 · cited 1×
“In a continuing discussion and agreement process, the information science and the scientific literature retrieval communities have developed methods and standards which aim for a high level of quality in literature retrieval and reporting [14-18].”
BackgroundKulkarni, A. V. (2009) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1307 · Cited by 821 · cited 1×
“This technology known as autonomous citation indexing, is also applied to the Web of Knowledge and Scopus, however, with differing results [37,38].”
ResultDetection of gene pathways with predictive power for breast cancer prognosis
Ma, S., & Kosorok, M. R. (2010) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-11-1 · Cited by 693
An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies
Sampson, M., McGowan, J., Cogo, E., Grimshaw, J., Moher, D., & Lefebvre, C. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.012 · Cited by 608 · cited 1×
“In a continuing discussion and agreement process, the information science and the scientific literature retrieval communities have developed methods and standards which aim for a high level of quality in literature retrieval and reporting [14-18].”
BackgroundLefebvre, C., Manheimer, E. W., & Glanville, J. (2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184.ch6 · Cited by 599
Selecting Studies and Collecting Data
Higgins, J. P., & Deeks, J. J. (2008) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9780470712184.ch7 · Cited by 467 · cited 2×
“Assuming fast reference checking for exclusion of irrelevant references as a first step of manual study selection [41], an experienced information specialist can check up to 1,000 references a day [53].”
BackgroundIs the coverage of google scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews
Gehanno, J.-F., Rollin, L., & Darmoni, S. (2013) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/1472-6947-13-7 · Cited by 357 · cited 1×
“However, the paper was received with some critique on its overly positive interpretation and conclusion which may not be justified by its methods [10-13].”
BackgroundAntidepressants versus placebo for depression in primary care
Arroll, B., Elley, C. R., Fishman, T., Goodyear‐Smith, F., Kenealy, T. W., Blashki, G. A., Kerse, N. M., & MacGillivray, S. A. (2009) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007954 · Cited by 353 · cited 3×
“We retrieved the newest versions of the 14 Cochrane reviews from the Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 3/2013 used in [9] from the Cochrane Library [21-34 , Where available, the documented search strategies for MEDLINE (OvidSP or PubMed) searches were extracted from the Cochrane reviews.”
BackgroundMethodSemi-automated screening of biomedical citations for systematic reviews
Wallace, B. C., Trikalinos, T. A., Lau, J., Brodley, C., & Schmid, C. H. (2010) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-11-55 · Cited by 351 · cited 1×
“Assuming fast reference checking for exclusion of irrelevant references as a first step of manual study selection [41], an experienced information specialist can check up to 1,000 references a day [53].”
BackgroundGreen tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer
Filippini, T., Malavolti, M., Borrelli, F., Izzo, A. A., Fairweather‐Tait, S. J., Horneber, M., & Vinceti, M. (2020) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005004.pub3 · Cited by 338
Non-pharmacological interventions for assisting the induction of anaesthesia in children
Manyande, A., Cyna, A. M., Yip, P., Chooi, C., & Middleton, P. (2015) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006447.pub3 · Cited by 324
Brief interventions for heavy alcohol users admitted to general hospital wards
McQueen, J., Howe, T. E., Allan, L., Mains, D., & Hardy, V. (2011) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005191.pub3 · Cited by 291 · cited 3×
“We retrieved the newest versions of the 14 Cochrane reviews from the Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 3/2013 used in [9] from the Cochrane Library [21-34 , Where available, the documented search strategies for MEDLINE (OvidSP or PubMed) searches were extracted from the Cochrane reviews.”
BackgroundMethodArtemisinin-based combination therapy for treating uncomplicated malaria
Sinclair, D., Zani, B., Donegan, S., Olliaro, P., & Garner, P. (2009) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007483.pub2 · Cited by 289 · cited 3×
“We retrieved the newest versions of the 14 Cochrane reviews from the Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 3/2013 used in [9] from the Cochrane Library [21-34 , Where available, the documented search strategies for MEDLINE (OvidSP or PubMed) searches were extracted from the Cochrane reviews.”
BackgroundMethod"Brimful of STARLITE": toward standards for reporting literature searches.
Booth, A. (2006) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 267
Systematic reviews need systematic searchers.
(2005) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 257
do Nascimento, P., Módolo, N. S. P., Andrade, S., Guimarães, M. M., Braz, L. G., & Dib, R. E. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006058.pub3 · Cited by 240
Oral iron supplements for children in malaria-endemic areas
Neuberger, A., Okebe, J., Yahav, D., & Paul, M. (2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006589.pub4 · Cited by 220
Interventions to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss
Tikka, C., Verbeek, J. H. A. M., Kateman, E., Morata, T. C., Dreschler, W. A., & Ferrite, S. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006396.pub4 · Cited by 220
Unpacking your literature search toolbox: on search styles and tactics
Booth, A. (2008) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2008.00825.x · Cited by 193 · cited 1×
“We analyzed the search strategies for their constituting blocks and aspects [44].”
MethodGoogle Scholar is not enough to be used alone for systematic reviews
Giustini, D., & Kamel Boulos, M. N. (2013) · Online Journal of Public Health Informatics · doi:10.5210/ojphi.v5i2.4623 · Cited by 187
Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer
Boehm, K., Borrelli, F., Ernst, E., Habacher, G., Hung, S. K., Milazzo, S., & Horneber, M. (2009) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005004.pub2 · Cited by 186 · cited 3×
“We retrieved the newest versions of the 14 Cochrane reviews from the Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 3/2013 used in [9] from the Cochrane Library [21-34 , Where available, the documented search strategies for MEDLINE (OvidSP or PubMed) searches were extracted from the Cochrane reviews.”
BackgroundMethodComparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar
Shultz, M. (2007) · Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · doi:10.3163/1536-5050.95.4.442 · Cited by 174 · cited 1×
“However, other authors already warned not to make assumptions on the search engine performance based only on retrieval quantities [48].”
BackgroundTherapeutic interventions for symptomatic treatment in Huntington's disease
Mestre, T., Ferreira, J. J., Coelho, M. M., Rosa, M. M., & Sampaio, C. (2009) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006456.pub2 · Cited by 173 · cited 3×
“We retrieved the newest versions of the 14 Cochrane reviews from the Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 3/2013 used in [9] from the Cochrane Library [21-34 , Where available, the documented search strategies for MEDLINE (OvidSP or PubMed) searches were extracted from the Cochrane reviews.”
BackgroundMethodPharmacotherapy for anxiety disorders in children and adolescents
Ipser, J., Stein, D. J., Hawkridge, S. M., & Hoppe, L. J. (2009) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005170.pub2 · Cited by 171 · cited 3×
“We retrieved the newest versions of the 14 Cochrane reviews from the Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 3/2013 used in [9] from the Cochrane Library [21-34 , Where available, the documented search strategies for MEDLINE (OvidSP or PubMed) searches were extracted from the Cochrane reviews.”
BackgroundMethodThe effects of antimicrobial therapy on bacterial vaginosis in non-pregnant women
Oduyebo, O. O., Anorlu, R. I., & Ogunsola, F. T. (2009) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006055.pub2 · Cited by 166 · cited 3×
“We retrieved the newest versions of the 14 Cochrane reviews from the Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 3/2013 used in [9] from the Cochrane Library [21-34 , Where available, the documented search strategies for MEDLINE (OvidSP or PubMed) searches were extracted from the Cochrane reviews.”
BackgroundMethodHaig, A., & Dozier, M. (2003) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590310001608667 · Cited by 163 · cited 1×
“On the other hand, the quality of literature search has been recognized as one of the key features for the generation of high quality scientific evidence [5,6].”
BackgroundBohlius, J., Schmidlin, K., Brillant, C., Schwarzer, G., Trelle, S., Seidenfeld, J., Zwahlen, M., Clarke, M. J., Weingart, O., Kluge, S., et al. (2009) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007303.pub2 · Cited by 153 · cited 3×
“We retrieved the newest versions of the 14 Cochrane reviews from the Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 3/2013 used in [9] from the Cochrane Library [21-34 , Where available, the documented search strategies for MEDLINE (OvidSP or PubMed) searches were extracted from the Cochrane reviews.”
BackgroundMethodErrors in search strategies were identified by type and frequency
Sampson, M., & McGowan, J. (2006) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.01.007 · Cited by 142 · cited 1×
“Background For many scientists, especially in the life-science domains, the literature retrieval process is tedious, errorprone and nontransparent [1-4].”
BackgroundSampson, M., Zhang, L., Morrison, A., Barrowman, N. J., Clifford, T., Platt, R. W., Klassen, T. P., & Moher, D. (2006) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-33 · Cited by 133
Retrieving Clinical Evidence: A Comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar for Quick Clinical Searches
Shariff, S. Z., Bejaimal, S. A., Sontrop, J. M., Iansavichus, A. V., Haynes, R. B., Weir, M. A., & Garg, A. X. (2013) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.2624 · Cited by 119
Medical literature searches: a comparison of P ub M ed and G oogle S cholar
Nourbakhsh, E., Nugent, R., Wang, H., Çevik, C., & NUGENT, K. M. (2012) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2012.00992.x · Cited by 118 · cited 1×
“In the light of this well justified demand, recent results on the quality of Google Scholar as a resource for scientific literature retrieval, even for systematic reviews, gave rise to high expectations on the emergence of such a unifying search interface [7-9].”
BackgroundAn exploratory study of Google Scholar
Mayr, P., & Walter, A. (2007) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/14684520710841784 · Cited by 101 · cited 1×
“References are also ranked based on how often they are cited by other references and other information [39].”
BackgroundGarcía‐Pérez, M. A. (2010) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.21372 · Cited by 101 · cited 1×
“Several reports from different research areas underpin these high coverage results [35,36].”
ResultNon-pharmacological interventions for assisting the induction of anaesthesia in children
Yip, P., Middleton, P., Cyna, A. M., & Carlyle, A. V. (2009) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006447.pub2 · Cited by 96 · cited 2×
“We retrieved the newest versions of the 14 Cochrane reviews from the Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 3/2013 used in [9] from the Cochrane Library [21-34,43].”
BackgroundMethodGoogle Scholar Search Performance: Comparative Recall and Precision
Walters, W. H. (2009) · portal Libraries and the Academy · doi:10.1353/pla.0.0034 · Cited by 93
Guimarães, M. M., Dib, R. E., Smith, A. F., & Matos, D. (2009) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006058.pub2 · Cited by 93
How much searching is enough? Comprehensive versus optimal retrieval for technology assessments
Booth, A. (2010) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462310000966 · Cited by 88
Oral iron supplements for children in malaria-endemic areas
Okebe, J., Yahav, D., Shbita, R., & Paul, M. (2011) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006589.pub3 · Cited by 88 · cited 3×
“We retrieved the newest versions of the 14 Cochrane reviews from the Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 3/2013 used in [9] from the Cochrane Library [21-34 , Where available, the documented search strategies for MEDLINE (OvidSP or PubMed) searches were extracted from the Cochrane reviews.”
BackgroundMethodPrecision of healthcare systematic review searches in a cross‐sectional sample
Sampson, M., Tetzlaff, J., & Urquhart, C. (2011) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.42 · Cited by 80 · cited 1×
“She calculated a mean precision of about 3% for systematic reviews with a large range [51].”
BackgroundReproducibility of Literature Search Reporting in Medical Education Reviews
Maggio, L. A., Tannery, N. H., & Kanter, S. L. (2011) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e31822221e7 · Cited by 77 · cited 1×
“Background For many scientists, especially in the life-science domains, the literature retrieval process is tedious, errorprone and nontransparent [1-4].”
BackgroundBar‐On, E. S., Goldberg, E., Hellmann, S., & Leibovici, L. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005530.pub3 · Cited by 70 · cited 3×
“We retrieved the newest versions of the 14 Cochrane reviews from the Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 3/2013 used in [9] from the Cochrane Library [21-34 , Where available, the documented search strategies for MEDLINE (OvidSP or PubMed) searches were extracted from the Cochrane reviews.”
BackgroundMethodInterventions to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss
Verbeek, J. H. A. M., Kateman, E., Morata, T. C., Dreschler, W. A., & Tikka, C. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd006396.pub3 · Cited by 69
A look at Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scirus: comparisons and recommendations
Giustini, D., & Barsky, E. (2005) · Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l Association de bilbiothèques de la santé du Canada · doi:10.5596/c05-030 · Cited by 60
Guimarães, M. M., Dib, R. E., Smith, A. F., Matos, D., & Gomes, B. P. F. D. A. (2009) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e3181bb1a36 · Cited by 49
Waffenschmidt, S., Janzen, T., Hausner, E., & Kaiser, T. (2013) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.11.011 · Cited by 40 · cited 3×
“In this approach, the references of the included studies from the Cochrane systematic reviews are used as an alternative gold standard [19,20].”
MethodHaase, A., Follmann, M., Skipka, G., & Kirchner, H. (2007) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-28 · Cited by 36
Single dose oral flurbiprofen for acute postoperative pain in adults
Sultan, A., McQuay, H. J., Moore, R. A., & Derry, S. (2009) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007358.pub2 · Cited by 33 · cited 3×
“We retrieved the newest versions of the 14 Cochrane reviews from the Database of Systematic Reviews Issue 3/2013 used in [9] from the Cochrane Library [21-34 , Where available, the documented search strategies for MEDLINE (OvidSP or PubMed) searches were extracted from the Cochrane reviews.”
BackgroundMethodLost in PubMed. Factors influencing the success of medical information retrieval
Vanopstal, K., Buysschaert, J., Laureys, G., & Stichele, R. V. (2013) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2013.01.036 · Cited by 19
Analysis of equine protein-coding gene structure and expression by RNA-sequencing
Coleman, S. J., Zeng, Z., Liu, J., & MacLeod, J. N. (2010) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-11-s4-o8 · Cited by 11
Boeker, M., Vach, W., & Motschall, E. (2012) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.015 · Cited by 9 · cited 1×
“Background For many scientists, especially in the life-science domains, the literature retrieval process is tedious, errorprone and nontransparent [1-4].”
BackgroundSelf-citation260 Interventions to prevent occupational noise-induced hearing loss - a Cochrane Review
Verbeek, V. J., Kateman, Morata, Dreschler, & Mischke (2013) · Occupational and Environmental Medicine · doi:10.1136/oemed-2013-101717.260 · Cited by 6
Comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar Literature Searches
Anders, M. E., & Evans, D. P. (2010) · Respiratory Care · doi:10.4187/respcare.10550578 · Cited by 3
Reflections on medical literature searches
Sharma, P. (2013) · Transfusion · doi:10.1111/trf.12247 · Cited by 1
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Heinzl S: Medizinreport: studien im fokus. Medizinisch-wissenschaftliche recherche: Google scholar ist PubMed möglicherweise überlegen. Dtsch Arztebl. 2012, 109: A–2467-
- Ovaska T, Fiander M, Weightman A: BMC medical informatics and decision making – user comments – is the coverage of Google scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. 2013, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/13/7/comments ,
- Cochrane Editorial Unit: Methodological expectations of Cochrane intervention reviews (MECIR). 2013, http://www.editorial-unit.cochrane.org/mecir ,
- Google Inc: About Google scholar. 2013, http://www.google.com/intl/en/scholar/about.html ,
- Jasco P: As we may search – comparison of major features of the Web of science, Scopus, and Google scholar citation-based and citation-enhanced databases. Curr Sci. 2005, 89: 1537-1547.
- The Cochrane Collaboration: The Cochrane Library. Independent high-quality evidence for health care decision making. 2013, http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/index.html ,
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The role of google scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching
Haddaway, N. R., Collins, A. M., Coughlin, D., & Kirk, S. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0138237 · Cited by 2,387
“[11,12], but also as a replacement for traditional academic citation databases and in searches for grey literature in systematic reviews [13,14].”
BackgroundInfluentialGusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1378 · Cited by 2,379
“25 This is not surprising, since our findings show that Google Scholar does not support many of the features required for systematic searches.”
BackgroundResultInfluentialHalevi, G., Moed, H., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2017) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.06.005 · Cited by 488
Consolidated principles for screening based on a systematic review and consensus process
Dobrow, M. J., Hagens, V., Chafe, R., Sullivan, T., & Rabeneck, L. (2018) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.171154 · Cited by 359
Wearable sensor-based real-time gait detection: A systematic review
Prasanth, H., Caban, M., Keller, U., Courtine, G., Ijspeert, A., Vallery, H., & von Zitzewitz, J. (2021) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s21082727 · Cited by 348
Metadata
- Authors
- Boeker, M., Vach, W., & Motschall, E.
- Affiliations
- University Medical Center Freiburg (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Boeker, Martin
- Venue
- BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Published
- 2013-10-26
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 131-131
- ISSN
- 1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3840556
- OpenAlex
- W2073728848
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 58
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 13.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- FreiDok plus (Universitätsbibliothek Freiburg) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Keywords
- Google Scholar, systematic search, search recall, search precision, search strategies, MEDLINE
- MeSH terms
- Abstracting and Indexing, Algorithms, Humans, Review Literature as Topic, MEDLINE, Internet, Data Mining, Search Engine
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
