ArticleResearch synthesis methods2021
Commentary to Gusenbauer and Haddaway 2020: Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar and PubMed.
Article in Research synthesis methods, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- CRISPR/Cas9-Based Genome Editing: Understanding Differences in DNA Repair Pathways, Profiles, and Outcomes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Connections and Biases in Health Equity and Culture Research: A Semantic Network Analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- PageRank Topic Finder based Algorithm for Multimedia Resources in Preschool Education.Computational intelligence and neuroscience · 2022Article
- Commentary to Gusenbauer and Haddaway 2020: Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar and PubMed.Research synthesis methods · 2021Article
- What every researcher should know about searching - clarified concepts, search advice, and an agenda to improve finding in academia.Research synthesis methods · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We read with considerable interest the study by Gusenbauer and Haddaway (Gusenbauer and Haddaway, 2020, Research Synthesis Methods, doi:10.1002/jrsm.1378) comparing the systematic search qualities of 28 search systems, including Google Scholar (GS) and PubMed. Google Scholar and PubMed are the two most popular free academic search tools in biology and chemistry, with GS being the number one search tool in the world. Those academics using GS as their principal system for literature searches may be unaware of research which enumerates five critical features for scientific literature tools that greatly influenced Gusenbauer's 2020 study. Using this list as the framework for a targeted comparison between just GS and PubMed, we found stark differences which overwhelmingly favored PubMed. In this comment, we show that by comparing the characteristics of the two search tools, features that are particularly useful in one search tool, but are missing in the other, are strikingly spotlighted. One especially popular feature that ubiquitously appears in GS, but not in PubMed, is the forward citation search found under every citation as a clickable Cited by N link. We seek to improve the PubMed search experience using two approaches. First, we request that PubMed add Cited by N links, making them as omnipresent as the GS links. Second, we created an open-source command-line tool, pmidcite, which is used alongside PubMed to give information to researchers to help with the choice of the next paper to examine, analogous to how GS's Cited by N links help to guide users. Find pmidcite at https://github.com/dvklopfenstein/pmidcite.
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.