Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35571007›Full record

ArticleScientometrics2022

Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases.

Michael Gusenbauer

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientometrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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 · 2025
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Michael GusenbauerUniversity of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-7768-2351

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper introduces a novel scientometrics method and applies it to estimate the subject coverages of many of the popular English-focused bibliographic databases in academia. The method uses query results as a common denominator to compare a wide variety of search engines, repositories, digital libraries, and other bibliographic databases. The method extends existing sampling-based approaches that analyze smaller sets of database coverages. The findings show the relative and absolute subject coverages of 56 databases-information that has often not been available before. Knowing the databases'

Indexed as

Basket of keywordsBibliographic databaseComparisonQuery hit countsSearch systemSubject coverage

Identifiers

PMID35571007
PMCPMC9075928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.