| Title |
The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-2-115 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wichor M Bramer, Dean Giustini, Bianca MR Kramer, PF Anderson |
| Abstract |
The usefulness of Google Scholar (GS) as a bibliographic database for biomedical systematic review (SR) searching is a subject of current interest and debate in research circles. Recent research has suggested GS might even be used alone in SR searching. This assertion is challenged here by testing whether GS can locate all studies included in 21 previously published SRs. Second, it examines the recall of GS, taking into account the maximum number of items that can be viewed, and tests whether more complete searches created by an information specialist will improve recall compared to the searches used in the 21 published SRs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 144 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 22 | 15% |
| United Kingdom | 16 | 11% |
| United States | 15 | 10% |
| Canada | 9 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 9 | 6% |
| Australia | 7 | 5% |
| Belgium | 2 | 1% |
| France | 2 | 1% |
| Argentina | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 10 | 7% |
| Unknown | 50 | 35% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 90 | 63% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 20 | 14% |
| Scientists | 20 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 13 | 9% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 5 | 2% |
| United States | 5 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| India | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Bangladesh | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | 2% |
| Unknown | 239 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 45 | 17% |
| Researcher | 36 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 36 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 10% |
| Other | 24 | 9% |
| Other | 51 | 19% |
| Unknown | 43 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 82 | 31% |
| Social Sciences | 32 | 12% |
| Computer Science | 24 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 3% |
| Other | 47 | 18% |
| Unknown | 55 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 99. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 March 2021.
All research outputs
#432,956
of 25,713,737 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#48
of 2,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,082
of 322,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#1
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,713,737 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,247 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 322,746 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.