Acta Scientific Medical Sciences (ASMS)(ISSN: 2582-0931)

Research Article Volume 4 Issue 12

A Systematic Review on the Sufficiency of PubMed and Google Scholar for Biosciences

Yun Hwee Teo1 and Maurice HT Ling1,2*

1School of Applied Sciences, Temasek Polytechnic, Singapore
2HOHY PTE LTD, Singapore

*Corresponding Author: Maurice HT Ling, School of Applied Sciences, Temasek Polytechnic and HOHY PTE LTD, Singapore.

Received: September 23, 2020; Published: November 10, 2020

Reprints View PDF Related Articles

×

Abstract

  NCBI PubMed is the de facto bibliographic database for biosciences but has been shown to be insufficient for the purpose of systematic review and meta-analysis, which requires comprehensiveness. Among bibliographic databases, Google Scholar is most comprehensive. With arguments that PubMed, supplemented with Google Scholar, may be sufficient for a systematic review in biosciences; we reviewed 18 studies to determine whether a combination of PubMed and Google Scholar is sufficient. Current literature shows that the combined coverage of Google Scholar and PubMed is between 85% to 98% of the universe of bioscience articles, which may be sufficient. However, Google Scholar alone is not sufficient as the concordance between PubMed and Google Scholar is 30.3% with 20.3% of the articles unique to PubMed.

Keywords: Systematic Review; PubMed; Google Scholar

×

References

  1. Kelly L and St Pierre-Hansen N. “So Many Databases, Such Little Clarity: Searching the Literature for the Topic Aboriginal”. Canadian Family Physician 11 (2008): 1572-1573.
  2. Lu Z. “PubMed and Beyond: A Survey of Web Tools for Searching Biomedical Literature”. Database Oxford (2011): baq036.
  3. Liljekvist MS., et al. “For 481 Biomedical Open Access Journals, Articles are not Searchable in the Directory of Open Access Journals nor in Conventional Biomedical Databases”. PeerJ 3 (2015): e972.
  4. Zheng B., et al. “Are PubMed Alone and English Literature Only Enough for a Meta-Analysis?” Annals of Oncology 4 (2013): 1130.
  5. Greyson D., et al. “Systematic Review Searches Must Be Systematic, Comprehensive, and Transparent: A Critique of Perman et al”. BMC Public Health1 (2019): 153.
  6. Atkinson LZ and Cipriani A. “How to Carry Out a Literature Search for a Systematic Review: A Practical Guide”. BJPsych Advances 2 (2018): 74-82.
  7. Beyer FR and Wright K. “Can We Prioritise Which Databases to Search? A Case Study Using a Systematic Review of Frozen Shoulder Management”. Health Information and Libraries Journal 1 (2013): 49-58.
  8. Bramer WM., et al. “Comparing the Coverage, Recall, and Precision of Searches for 120 Systematic Reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: A Prospective Study”. Systematic Reviews 5 (2016): 39.
  9. Bramer WM., et al. “Optimal Database Combinations for Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews: A Prospective Exploratory Study”. Systematic Reviews 1 (2017): 245.
  10. Gusenbauer M. “Google Scholar to Overshadow Them All? Comparing the Sizes of 12 Academic Search Engines and Bibliographic Databases”. Scientometrics1 (2019): 177-214.
  11. Yasin A., et al. “On Using Grey Literature and Google Scholar in Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering”. IEEE Access 8 (2020): 36226-36243.
  12. Haddaway NR., et al. “The Role of Google Scholar in Evidence Reviews and Its Applicability to Grey Literature Searching”. PLOS ONE9 (2015): e0138237.
  13. Piasecki J., et al. “Google Search as an Additional Source in Systematic Reviews”. Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (2018): 809-810.
  14. Bramer WM., et al. “A Systematic Approach to Searching: An Efficient and Complete Method to Develop Literature Searches”. Journal of the Medical Library Association 4 (2018): 531-541.
  15. Mastrangelo G., et al. “Literature Search on Risk Factors for Sarcoma: PubMed and Google Scholar may be Complementary Sources”. BMC Research Notes 3.1 (2010): 131.
  16. Falagas ME., et al. “Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and Weaknesses”. FASEB Journal 2 (2008): 338-342.
  17. Shultz M. “Comparing Test Searches in PubMed and Google Scholar”. Journal of the Medical Library Association 4 (2007): 442-445.
  18. Teng CL. “In Search Of Malaysia: Pubmed, Google Scholar Or Scopus?” IeJSME 2 (2008): 5-8.
  19. Xue J., et al. “Searches Comparing between Google Scholar and PubMed”. Library Information Services 07 (2008): 133-135.
  20. Freeman MK., et al. “Google Scholar versus PubMed in Locating Primary Literature to Answer Drug-Related Questions”. Annals of Pharmacotherapy 3 (2009): 478-484.
  21. Wang D. “Comparison of the Strengths and Weaknesses of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar”. Journal of Agriculture Research and Life Sciences 2 (2010): 109-112.
  22. Anders ME and Evans DP. “Comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar Literature Searches”. Respiratory Care 5 (2010): 578-583.
  23. Hightower C and Caldwell C. “Shifting Sands: Science Researchers on Google Scholar, Web of Science, and PubMed, with Implications for Library Collections Budgets”. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship (2010).
  24. Tober M. “PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus or Google Scholar – Which is the Best Search Engine for an Effective Literature Research in Laser Medicine?” Medical Laser Application 3 (2011):139-144.
  25. Nourbakhsh E., et al. “Medical Literature Searches: A Comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar”. Health Information and Libraries Journal 3 (2012): 214-222.
  26. Perryman C. “For Non-Expert Clinical Searches, Google Scholar Results are Older with Higher Impact While PubMed Results Offer More Breadth”. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2 (2013): 254-257.
  27. Shariff SZ., et al. “Retrieving Clinical Evidence: A Comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar for Quick Clinical Searches”. Journal of Medical Internet Research 8 (2013): e164.
  28. Bramer WM., et al. “The Comparative Recall of Google Scholar Versus PubMed in Identical Searches for Biomedical Systematic Reviews: A Review of Searches Used in Systematic Reviews”. Systematic Reviews 1 (2013): 115.
  29. Wakimoto DK. “Google Scholar Retrieves Twice As Many Relevant Citations As PubMed and Provides Greater Full-Text Access for Quick, Clinical Nephrology Searches”. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 1 (2014): 36-38.
  30. Badgett RG., et al. “An Experimental Search Strategy Retrieves More Precise Results than PubMed and Google for Questions about Medical Interventions”. PeerJ 3 (2015): e913.
  31. Gusenbauer M and Haddaway NR. “Which Academic Search Systems are Suitable for Systematic Reviews or Meta‐Analyses? Evaluating Retrieval Qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 Other Resources”. Research Synthesis Methods 2 (2020): 181-217.
  32. Morshed T and Hayden S. “Google Versus PubMed: Comparison of Google and PubMed’s Search Tools for Answering Clinical Questions in the Emergency Department”. Annals of Emergency Medicine 3 (2020): 408-415.
  33. Martín-Martín A., et al. “Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A Systematic Comparison of Citations in 252 Subject Categories”. Journal of Informetrics 4 (2018): 1160-1177.
  34. Dunn G. “Design and Analysis of Reliability Studies”. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2 (1992): 123-157.
  35. Xing X., et al. “Exposing Inconsistent Web Search Results with Bobble”. In: Faloutsos M, Kuzmanovic A, editors. Passive and Active Measurement. Springer International Publishing (2014): 131-140.
×

Citation

Citation: Yun Hwee Teo and Maurice HT Ling. “A Systematic Review on the Sufficiency of PubMed and Google Scholar for Biosciences". Acta Scientific Medical Sciences 4.12 (2020): 03-08.



Table of Contents


Metrics

Acceptance rate30%
Acceptance to publication20-30 days
Impact Factor1.403

Indexed In





Contact US





Creative Commons License Open Access by Acta Scientific is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Based on a work at https://actascientific.com

ff

Acta-Publications

ff

© 2021 Acta Scientific, All rights reserved.