ArticleClinical kidney journal2012
Availability of renal literature in six bibliographic databases.
Article in Clinical kidney journal, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- MEDLINE search retrieval issues: A longitudinal query analysis of five vendor platforms.PloS one · 2021Article
- 'I Can Step outside My Comfort Zone.'Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Article
- Optimizing literature search in systematic reviews - are MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL enough for identifying effect studies within the area of musculoskeletal disorders?BMC medical research methodology · 2016Article
- Retrieving clinical evidence: a comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar for quick clinical searches.Journal of medical Internet research · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhen searching for renal literature, nephrologists must choose between several different bibliographic databases. We compared the availability of renal clinical studies in six major bibliographic databases.
methodsWe gathered 151 renal systematic reviews, which collectively contained 2195 unique citations referencing primary studies in the form of journal articles, meeting articles or meeting abstracts published between 1963 and 2008. We searched for each citation in three subscription-free bibliographic databases (PubMed, Google Scholar and Scirus) and three subscription-based databases (EMBASE, Ovid-MEDLINE and ISI Web of Knowledge). For the subscription-free databases, we determined which full-text journal articles were available free of charge via links to the article source.
resultsThe proportion of journal articles contained within each of the six databases ranged from 96 to 97%; results were similar for meeting articles. Availability of meeting abstracts was poor, ranging from 0 to 37% (P < 0.01) with ISI Web of Knowledge containing the largest proportion [37%, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 32-43%]. Among the subscription-free databases, free access to full-text articles was highest in Google Scholar (38% free, 95% CI 36-41%), and was only marginally higher (39%) when all subscription-free databases were searched. After 2000, free access to full-text articles increased to 49%.
conclusionsOver 99% of renal clinical journal articles are available in at least one major bibliographic database. Subscription-free databases provide free full-text access to almost half of the articles published after the year 2000, which may be of particular interest to clinicians in settings with limited access to subscription-based resources.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.