CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 139Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsInformation Retrieval and Search Behaviorscientometrics and bibliometrics research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews

Open access
Bramer, Wichor M, Giustini, Dean, Kramer, Bianca MR, Anderson, PF·2013·Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-2-115PMC PMC3882110
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The usefulness of Google Scholar (GS) as a bibliographic database for biomedical systematic review (SR) searching is a subject of current interest and debate in research circles. Recent research has suggested GS might even be used alone in SR searching. This assertion is challenged here by testing whether GS can locate all studies included in 21 previously published SRs. Second, it examines the recall of GS, taking into account the maximum number of items that can be viewed, and tests whether more complete searches created by an information specialist will improve recall compared to the searches used in the 21 published SRs. METHODS: The authors identified 21 biomedical SRs that had used GS and PubMed as information sources and reported their use of identical, reproducible search strategies in both databases. These search strategies were rerun in GS and PubMed, and analyzed as to their coverage and recall. Efforts were made to improve searches that underperformed in each database. RESULTS: GS' overall coverage was higher than PubMed (98% versus 91%) and overall recall is higher in GS: 80% of the references included in the 21 SRs were returned by the original searches in GS versus 68% in PubMed. Only 72% of the included references could be used as they were listed among the first 1,000 hits (the maximum number shown). Practical precision (the number of included references retrieved in the first 1,000, divided by 1,000) was on average 1.9%, which is only slightly lower than in other published SRs. Improving searches with the lowest recall resulted in an increase in recall from 48% to 66% in GS and, in PubMed, from 60% to 85%. CONCLUSIONS: Although its coverage and precision are acceptable, GS, because of its incomplete recall, should not be used as a single source in SR searching. A specialized, curated medical database such as PubMed provides experienced searchers with tools and functionality that help improve recall, and numerous options in order to optimize precision. Searches for SRs should be performed by experienced searchers creating searches that maximize recall for as many databases as deemed necessary by the search expert.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/2046-4053-2-115

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Flow diagram of reviewed articles. Bramer et al. - the recall of Google Scholar is insufficient.
Figure 1 Flow diagram of reviewed articles. Bramer et al. - the recall of Google Scholar is insufficient.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Practical precision of Google Scholar. Bramer et al. - the recall of Google Scholar is insufficient.
Figure 2 Practical precision of Google Scholar. Bramer et al. - the recall of Google Scholar is insufficient.CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 33 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Bramer, W. M., Giustini, D., Kramer, B. M., & Anderson, P.
Affiliations
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Bramer, Wichor M
ORCID
Venue
Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2013-12
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
115-115
ISSN
2046-4053 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/2046-4053-2-115
PMC
PMC3882110
OpenAlex
W2100684744
Cited by
139
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 4
FWCI
1.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • cIRcle (University of British Columbia) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (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, PubMed, search precision, information retrieval, database comparison
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Humans, Information Storage and Retrieval, Internet, PubMed, 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