Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23948488›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2013

Retrieving clinical evidence: a comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar for quick clinical searches.

Salimah Z Shariff, Shayna Ad Bejaimal, Jessica M Sontrop, Arthur V Iansavichus, R Brian Haynes, Matthew A Weir, Amit X Garg

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Influence of N-acetylcysteine on chronic bronchitis or COPD exacerbations: a meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2015
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. A shot in the dark: the impact of online visibility on the search for an effective sleep app.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Neurooncology: 2023 update.Free neuropathology · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Salimah Z ShariffKidney Clinical Research Unit, Division of Nephrology, Western University, London, ON, Canada. salimah.shariff@lhsc.on.ca
Shayna Ad Bejaimal
Jessica M Sontrop
Arthur V Iansavichus
R Brian Haynes
Matthew A Weir
Amit X Garg

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhysicians frequently search PubMed for information to guide patient care. More recently, Google Scholar has gained popularity as another freely accessible bibliographic database.

objectiveTo compare the performance of searches in PubMed and Google Scholar.

methodsWe surveyed nephrologists (kidney specialists) and provided each with a unique clinical question derived from 100 renal therapy systematic reviews. Each physician provided the search terms they would type into a bibliographic database to locate evidence to answer the clinical question. We executed each of these searches in PubMed and Google Scholar and compared results for the first 40 records retrieved (equivalent to 2 default search pages in PubMed). We evaluated the recall (proportion of relevant articles found) and precision (ratio of relevant to nonrelevant articles) of the searches performed in PubMed and Google Scholar. Primary studies included in the systematic reviews served as the reference standard for relevant articles. We further documented whether relevant articles were available as free full-texts.

resultsCompared with PubMed, the average search in Google Scholar retrieved twice as many relevant articles (PubMed: 11%; Google Scholar: 22%; P<.001). Precision was similar in both databases (PubMed: 6%; Google Scholar: 8%; P=.07). Google Scholar provided significantly greater access to free full-text publications (PubMed: 5%; Google Scholar: 14%; P<.001).

conclusionsFor quick clinical searches, Google Scholar returns twice as many relevant articles as PubMed and provides greater access to free full-text articles.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineInformation Storage and RetrievalDatabases, FactualInternetGoogle Scholarinformation dissemination/methodsinformation storage and retrievallibrary sciencemedicalnephrologyPubMed

Identifiers

PMID23948488
PMCPMC3757915

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.