Google Scholar as a Resource for Systematic Reviews in Clinical Medicine

IF 2.1 4区医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice Pub Date : 2025-07-13 DOI:10.1111/jep.70206

Matthew E. Falagas, Paraskevi Maria Paliogianni, Dimitrios S. Kontogiannis, Dimitrios Ragias, Elizabeth Johnson

{"title":"Google Scholar as a Resource for Systematic Reviews in Clinical Medicine","authors":"Matthew E. Falagas, Paraskevi Maria Paliogianni, Dimitrios S. Kontogiannis, Dimitrios Ragias, Elizabeth Johnson","doi":"10.1111/jep.70206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Authors of systematic reviews must select, among several options, the databases for searching articles for inclusion in their analyses. Google Scholar is readily available, easy to use, and widely accepted for everyday information searches, including scientific research. However, there is no consensus for its use as a resource in systematic reviews.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This study assessed the proportion of systematic reviews that used Google Scholar as a resource, the search strategies used, and the number of potentially missed articles if the search in Google Scholar was omitted and focused on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. We also analyzed data from the most recent systematic reviews in clinical medicine indexed in PubMed that listed Google Scholar as one of the resources used for literature searches.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The term ‘Google Scholar’ was included in the title and/or abstract of 6.1% of systematic reviews archived by PubMed, compared to 37.5%, 36.1%, 31.8%, 18.5%, and 14.1% for the terms ‘PubMed’, ‘Embase’, ‘Cochrane’, ‘Web of Science’, and ‘Scopus’, respectively. Almost all (1029/1030) articles in the results section of the evaluated systematic reviews could be found in Google Scholar searches. If Google Scholar was omitted as a resource, the missed articles were 5% (53/1029). Twenty-one of 50 (42%) of the evaluated systematic reviews did not mention the number of articles identified from Google Scholar searches.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Google Scholar, as the most inclusive resource, should be used along with other established resources for systematic reviews. Advances in artificial intelligence may facilitate its use for this scientific purpose.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70206","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Authors of systematic reviews must select, among several options, the databases for searching articles for inclusion in their analyses. Google Scholar is readily available, easy to use, and widely accepted for everyday information searches, including scientific research. However, there is no consensus for its use as a resource in systematic reviews.

Methods

This study assessed the proportion of systematic reviews that used Google Scholar as a resource, the search strategies used, and the number of potentially missed articles if the search in Google Scholar was omitted and focused on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. We also analyzed data from the most recent systematic reviews in clinical medicine indexed in PubMed that listed Google Scholar as one of the resources used for literature searches.

Results

The term ‘Google Scholar’ was included in the title and/or abstract of 6.1% of systematic reviews archived by PubMed, compared to 37.5%, 36.1%, 31.8%, 18.5%, and 14.1% for the terms ‘PubMed’, ‘Embase’, ‘Cochrane’, ‘Web of Science’, and ‘Scopus’, respectively. Almost all (1029/1030) articles in the results section of the evaluated systematic reviews could be found in Google Scholar searches. If Google Scholar was omitted as a resource, the missed articles were 5% (53/1029). Twenty-one of 50 (42%) of the evaluated systematic reviews did not mention the number of articles identified from Google Scholar searches.

Conclusion

Google Scholar, as the most inclusive resource, should be used along with other established resources for systematic reviews. Advances in artificial intelligence may facilitate its use for this scientific purpose.

查看原文本刊更多论文

b谷歌学者作为临床医学系统评价的资源

背景：系统评价的作者必须在几种选择中选择检索文章以纳入其分析的数据库。谷歌Scholar随时可用，易于使用，并被广泛接受用于日常信息搜索，包括科学研究。然而，在系统评价中将其作为一种资源并没有达成共识。方法本研究评估了使用谷歌Scholar作为资源的系统综述的比例、使用的搜索策略，以及如果省略谷歌Scholar的搜索并将重点放在PubMed、Cochrane Library和Scopus上，可能遗漏的文章数量。我们还分析了PubMed收录的最新临床医学系统综述的数据，这些综述将谷歌Scholar列为文献搜索的资源之一。结果在PubMed归档的系统综述中，有6.1%的标题和/或摘要包含“b谷歌Scholar”一词，而PubMed、Embase、Cochrane、Web of Science和Scopus的标题和/或摘要分别为37.5%、36.1%、31.8%、18.5%和14.1%。几乎所有的（1029/1030）篇文章都可以在谷歌Scholar搜索中找到。如果省略谷歌Scholar作为资源，则遗漏文章为5%（53/1029）。50篇被评估的系统综述中有21篇（42%）没有提到从b谷歌Scholar搜索中确定的文章数量。结论谷歌Scholar作为最具包容性的资源，应与其他已建立的资源一起进行系统评价。人工智能的进步可能有助于将其用于这一科学目的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice 医学-卫生保健

CiteScore

4.80

自引率

4.20%

发文量

143

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.