Is the coverage of google scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Jean François, Gehanno ^a   Laetitia, Rollin ^a   Stefan, Darmoni ^a  

^a ROUEN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (France)

Author keywords

Bibliometrics; Google scholar; Information retrieval methods; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; INTERNET; MEDLINE; METHODOLOGY;

INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; INTERNET; PUBMED;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84872020049     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726947     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-7     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. How Google is changing medicine. Giustini D, BMJ 2005 331 1487 1488 10.1136/bmj.331.7531.1487 16373722 (Pubitemid 43015409)
2. Searching the medical literature. Lindberg DA, NEJM 2006 354 2393 16738283
3. Google Scholar Usage: An Academic Library's Experience. Wang Y, Howard P, J Web Librarianship 2012 6 2 94 108 10.1080/19322909.2012.672067
4. Google Scholar versus PubMed in locating primary literature to answer drug-related questions. Freeman MK, Lauderdale SA, Kendrach MG, Woolley TW, Ann Pharmacother 2009 43 478 484 10.1345/aph.1L223 19261965
5. Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. Shultz M, J Med Libr Assoc 2007 95 442 445 10.3163/1536-5050.95.4.442 17971893 (Pubitemid 350106793)
6. EMBASE versus MEDLINE for family medicine searches: can MEDLINE searches find the forest or a tree? Wilkins T, Gillies RA, Davies K, Can Fam Physician 2005 51 849
7. A search strategy for occupational health intervention studies. Verbeek J, Salmi J, Pasternack I, Jauhiainen M, Laamanen I, Schaafsma F, Hulshof C, van Dijk F, Occup Environ Med 2005 62 682 687 10.1136/oem.2004.019117 16169913 (Pubitemid 41360893)
8. Searching for rehabilitation articles on MEDLINE and EMBASE. An example with cross-over design. Minozzi S, Pistotti V, Forni M, Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2000 81 720 722 10857512 (Pubitemid 30349711)
9. Searching the right database. A comparison of four databases for psychiatry journals. McDonald S, Taylor L, Adams C, Health Libr Rev 1999 16 151 156 10.1046/j.1365-2532.1999.00222.x 10620849
10. Identifying randomized controlled trials of cognitive therapy for depression: comparing the efficiency of Embase, Medline and PsycINFO bibliographic databases. Watson RJ, Richardson PH, Br J Med Psychol 1999 72 535 542 10.1348/000711299160220 10616135 (Pubitemid 30018995)
11. Bibliographic information retrieval in the field of artificial nutrition. Farriol M, Jordà-Olives M, Padró JB, Clin Nutr 1998 17 217 222 10.1016/S0261-5614(98)80062-9 10205345 (Pubitemid 28543097)
12. Assessment of bibliographic databases performance in information retrieval for occupational and environmental toxicology. Gehanno JF, Paris C, Thirion B, Caillard JF, Occup Environ Med 1998 55 562 566 10.1136/oem.55.8.562 9849544 (Pubitemid 28393915)
13. Medline and Embase complement each other in literature searches. Woods D, Trewheellar K, BMJ 1998 316 1166 9569421 (Pubitemid 28156472)
14. Evaluation of drug interaction document citation in nine on-line bibliographic databases. Barillot MJ, Sarrut B, Doreau CG, Ann Pharmacother 1997 31 45 49 8997464 (Pubitemid 27030064)
15. Selecting a database for literature searches in nursing: MEDLINE or CINAHL? Brazier H, Begley CM, J Adv Nurs 1996 24 868 875 10.1046/j.1365-2648. 1996.26426.x 8894905 (Pubitemid 126439408)
16. Comparison of CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases for the nurse researcher. Burnham J, Shearer B, Med Ref Serv Q 1993 12 45 57 10132288
17. Full-text and bibliographic database searching in the health sciences: an exploratory study comparing CCML and MEDLINE. Gallagher KE, Hulbert LA, Sullivan CP, Med Ref Serv Q 1990 9 17 25 10110455
18. Where you search is what you get: literature mining-Google Scholar versus Web of Science using a data set from a literature search in vegetation science. Beckmann M, von Wehrden H, J Veg Sci 2012 23 6 1197 1199 10.1111/j.1654-1103. 2012.01454.x
19. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB, BMJ 2005 330 68 10.1136/bmj.38336.804167.47 15619601 (Pubitemid 40093176)
20. Major inaccuracies in articles citing occupational or environmental medicine papers and their implications. Gehanno JF, Darmoni SJ, Caillard JF, J Med Libr Assoc 2005 93 118 121 15685284 (Pubitemid 41711174)
21. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Scherer RW, Langenberg P, Von Elm E, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007 2 R000005 17443628
22. Fate of abstracts presented at an International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH) congress-followed by publication in peer-reviewed journals? Rollin L, Darmoni S, Caillard J, Gehanno J, Scand J Work Environ Health 2009 35 461 465 10.5271/sjweh.1362 19851699
23. Nearly half of dental randomized controlled trials published in German are not included in Medline. Türp JC, Schulte J, Antes G, Eur J Oral Sci 2002 110 405 411 10.1034/j.1600-0722.2002.21343.x 12507212
24. A comparison of hand searching versus MEDLINE searching to identify reports of randomized controlled trials. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Lusher A, Lefebvre C, Westby M, Stat Med 2002 21 1625 1634 10.1002/sim.1191 12111923 (Pubitemid 34746066)
25. Is Google Scholar useful for bibliometrics? A webometric analysis. Aguillo IF, Scientometrics 2012 91 343 351 10.1007/s11192-011-0582-8
26. Google Scholar: a source for clinicians? Henderson J, CMAJ 2005 172 1549 1550 10.1503/cmaj.050404 15939908 (Pubitemid 40839521)
27. Google Scholar. Vine R, J Med Libr Assoc 2006 94 97 99
28. Medical literature searches: a comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar. Nourbakhsh E, Nugent R, Wang H, Cevik C, Nugent K, Health Info Libr J 2012 29 3 214 222 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2012.00992.x 22925384
29. Comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar literature searches. Anders ME, Evans DP, Respir Care 2012 55 578 583
30. Literature search on risk factors for sarcoma: PubMed and Google Scholar may be complementary sources. Mastrangelo G, Fadda E, Rossi CR, Zamprogno E, Buja A, Cegolon L, BMC Res Notes 2010 3 131 10.1186/1756-0500-3-131 20459746
31. How well do physicians use electronic information retrieval systems? A framework for investigation and systematic review. Hersh WR, Hickam DH, JAMA 1998 280 1347 1352 10.1001/jama.280.15.1347 9794316 (Pubitemid 28473724)
32. Online access to MEDLINE in clinical settings. A study of use and usefulness. Haynes RB, McKibbon KA, Walker CJ, Ryan N, Fitzgerald D, Ramsden MF, Ann Intern Med 1990 112 78 84 2403476 (Pubitemid 20026381)