ArticleSystematic reviews2013
The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers, 10 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
53 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 139 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effectiveness of Postharvest Processing on Microbiological Safety of Game Meat-A Systematic Review.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2026Pooled it
- Approach in inputs & outputs selection of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) efficiency measurement in hospitals: A systematic review.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Urban vectors of Chagas disease in the American continent: A systematic review of epidemiological surveys.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2022Pooled it
- Can minimal clinically important differences in patient reported outcome measures be predicted by machine learning in patients with total knee or hip arthroplasty? A systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Pooled it
- Electronic health record-based disease surveillance systems: A systematic literature review on challenges and solutions.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Pooled it
- Competing stimulus assessments: A systematic review.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2020Pooled it
- The (cost-)effectiveness of preventive, integrated care for community-dwelling frail older people: A systematic review.Health & social care in the community · 2019Pooled it
- Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study.Systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- A comparison of results of empirical studies of supplementary search techniques and recommendations in review methodology handbooks: a methodological review.Systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Reporting and Guidelines in Propensity Score Analysis: A Systematic Review of Cancer and Cancer Surgical Studies.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2017Pooled it
- Risk factors and circumstances associated with homelessness in older adults: a scoping review of quantitative and qualitative studies.The Gerontologist · 2026Article
- Perspective on the current state of hyperspectral/multispectral imaging for minimally invasive surgery.Journal of biomedical optics · 2026Review
- Supplementary search methods versus bibliographic database searching to identify studies and study reports.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Examining Practices Related to Ethical Aspects in eHealth Evaluation Research: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Searching for studies: A guide to information retrieval for Campbell systematic reviews.Campbell systematic reviews · 2024Article
- Comparative analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews over three decades.Systematic reviews · 2024Observational
- Antiphospholipid syndrome, thrombosis, and vaccination in the COVID-19 pandemic.Rheumatology international · 2024Review
- Reviewing the influence of positive leadership on worker well-being: A comprehensive analysis.Heliyon · 2024Review
- Database coverage and their use in systematic reviews regarding spinal manipulative therapy: an exploratory study.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2022Article
- Instruments to Measure Patient Satisfaction with Comprehensive Medication Management Services: A Scoping Review Protocol.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 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.
methodsThe 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.
resultsGS' 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%.
conclusionsAlthough 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.
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.