Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2016 Mar 1:5:39.
doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0215-7.

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

Wichor M Bramer  1 , Dean Giustini  2 , Bianca M R Kramer  3
Affiliations
Comparative Study

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

Wichor M Bramer et al. Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Previously, we reported on the low recall of Google Scholar (GS) for systematic review (SR) searching. Here, we test our conclusions further in a prospective study by comparing the coverage, recall, and precision of SR search strategies previously performed in Embase, MEDLINE, and GS.

Methods: The original search results from Embase and MEDLINE and the first 1000 results of GS for librarian-mediated SR searches were recorded. Once the inclusion-exclusion process for the resulting SR was complete, search results from all three databases were screened for the SR's included references. All three databases were then searched post hoc for included references not found in the original search results.

Results: We checked 4795 included references from 120 SRs against the original search results. Coverage of GS was high (97.2 %) but marginally lower than Embase and MEDLINE combined (97.5 %). MEDLINE on its own achieved 92.3 % coverage. Total recall of Embase/MEDLINE combined was 81.6 % for all included references, compared to GS at 72.8 % and MEDLINE alone at 72.6 %. However, only 46.4 % of the included references were among the downloadable first 1000 references in GS. When examining data for each SR, the traditional databases' recall was better than GS, even when taking into account included references listed beyond the first 1000 search results. Finally, precision of the first 1000 references of GS is comparable to searches in Embase and MEDLINE combined.

Conclusions: Although overall coverage and recall of GS are high for many searches, the database does not achieve full coverage as some researchers found in previous research. Further, being able to view only the first 1000 records in GS severely reduces its recall percentages. If GS would enable the browsing of records beyond the first 1000, its recall would increase but not sufficiently to be used alone in SR searching. Time needed to screen results would also increase considerably. These results support our assertion that neither GS nor one of the other databases investigated, is on its own, an acceptable database to support systematic review searching.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Legend of boxplot figures
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Total coverage and recall of MEDLINE (ML), Embase/MEDLINE (EM), and Google Scholar (GS)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Coverage per SR for GS, MEDLINE, and Embase/MEDLINE
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Recall per SR for the first 1000 references in GS, total GS, MEDLINE, and Embase/MEDLINE
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Precision per SR for the first 1000 references in GS, GS, MEDLINE, Embase/MEDLINE, and overall
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    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. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2011.00957.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Harzing AW. Publish or Perish. 2007. http://www.harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish . Accessed 24 February 2016.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources