ArticleBMC medical research methodology2013
Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
47 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 216 citations in OpenAlex.
- Disclosure experiences in LGBTQ+ healthcare staff: a systematic review and meta-synthesis.BMJ open · 2026Pooled it
- "Cyclist at 12 o'clock!": a systematic review of in-vehicle advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) for preventing car-rider crashes.Frontiers in public health · 2024Pooled it
- MicroRNAs expressed during normal wound healing and their associated pathways: A systematic review and bioinformatics analysis.PloS one · 2023Pooled it
- Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis to Rural Spatial Sustainability Evaluation: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Wearable Sensor-Based Real-Time Gait Detection: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Pooled it
- Applications, indications, and effects of passive hydrotherapy WATSU (WaterShiatsu)-A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- MicroRNAs expressed in depression and their associated pathways: A systematic review and a bioinformatics analysis.Journal of chemical neuroanatomy · 2019Pooled it
- Consolidated principles for screening based on a systematic review and consensus process.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2018Pooled it
- Reproducible study identification and selection in systematic reviews: barriers and paths forward.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Exploring the influence of lactoferrin on wound healing and related signaling pathways: a systematic review.FEBS open bio · 2026Review
- Comparing conventional and alternative mechanisms of discovering and accessing the scientific literature.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- A dataset of pre-pandemic African protected area visitation.Scientific data · 2025Article
- A mixed-methods survey and focus group study to understand researcher and clinician preferences for a Journal transparency Tool.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- The Prevalence and Correlates of Internet Addiction in India as Assessed by Young's Internet Addiction Test: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Indian journal of psychological medicine · 2024Review
- Occupational Therapy Assessment Tools for Children and Adolescents in Iran: A Scoping Review.Iranian journal of medical sciences · 2024Article
- Racism against healthcare users in inpatient care: a scoping review.International journal for equity in health · 2024Article
- The Role of AI in Serious Games and Gamification for Health: Scoping Review.JMIR serious games · 2024Article
- Methods used to evaluate usability of mobile clinical decision support systems for healthcare emergencies: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis.JAMIA open · 2023Review
- Development and Validation of an Automated Tool to Retrieve and Curate Faculty Publications of Academic Departments.Cureus · 2023Article
- Measuring the impact of the digital economy in developing countries: A systematic review and meta- analysis.Heliyon · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent 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.
methodsGeneral 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.
resultsWe 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%.
conclusionThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.