Comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of searches for 120 systematic reviews in Embase, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar: A prospective study

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Bramer, Wichor M ^a   Giustini, Dean ^b   Kramer, Bianca M R ^c  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Bibliographic databases; Information storage and retrieval; Review literature as topic; Search engine; Sensitivity and specificity

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; DATA BASE; EMBASE; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MEDLINE; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLICATION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; LITERATURE; STANDARDS;

DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; HUMANS; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; MEDLINE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84963542125     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-016-0215-7     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Gehanno J-F, Rollin L, Darmoni S. Is the coverage of google scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(1):7.
2. Bramer WM, Giustini D, Kramer BM, Anderson PF. The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews. 2013;2:115. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-115.
3. Gardois P, Calabrese R, Colombi N, Deplano A, Lingua C, Longo F, et al. Effectiveness of bibliographic searches performed by paediatric residents and interns assisted by librarians. A randomised controlled trial. Health Info Libr J. 2011;28(4):273-84.
4. Brettle A, Hulme C, Ormandy P. Effectiveness of information skills training and mediated searching: qualitative results from the EMPIRIC project. Health Info Libr J. 2007;24(1):24-33. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00702.x.
5. Harzing AW. Publish or Perish. 2007. http://www.harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish. Accessed 24 February 2016.
6. Ahmadi AR, Lafranca JA, Claessens LA, Imamdi RM, JN IJ, Betjes MG, et al. Shifting paradigms in eligibility criteria for live kidney donation: a systematic review. Kidney Int. 2015;87(1):31-45. doi: 10.1038/ki.2014.118.
7. Bramer WM. Evaluation of instructive texts on searching medical databases. J Med Libr Assoc. 2015;103(4):208-9. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.4.010.
8. van der Valk JP, Dubois AE, Gerth van Wijk R, Wichers HJ, de Jong NW. Systematic review on cashew nut allergy. Allergy. 2014;69(6):692-8. doi: 10.1111/all.12401.
9. de Vos RJ, Windt J, Weir A. Strong evidence against platelet-rich plasma injections for chronic lateral epicondylar tendinopathy: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2014;48(12):952-6. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2013-093281.
10. Haddaway NR, Collins AM, Coughlin D, Kirk S. The role of Google Scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0138237. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138237.
11. Boeker M, Vach W, Motschall E. Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):131.
12. Sampson M, Tetzlaff J, Urquhart C. Precision of healthcare systematic review searches in a cross-sectional sample. Research Synthesis Methods. 2011;2(2):119-25. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.42.