Using Google to search for evidence: how much is enough? One center's experience
- PMID: 40264223
- PMCID: PMC12016424
- DOI: 10.1186/s13643-025-02836-w
Using Google to search for evidence: how much is enough? One center's experience
Abstract
The rise of powerful search engines (e.g., Google) make the searching for gray literature more feasible within the time and resources of a typical systematic review. However, there are no hypothesis-testing studies to guide us on how to conduct such a search. It is our belief that the "best practices" for incorporating Google searches might come from the collection of experiential evidence that users have had, from which can be drawn some tentative conclusions. It is our intention with this communication to relay our experience with Google searches for five projects and the lessons we think we have learned. We invite our systematic review colleagues to contribute their own experiences and thus to build up the experiential evidence about when and how to use Google as a search engine to supplement traditional computerized database searches.
© 2025. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Similar articles
-
The impact of search engine selection and sorting criteria on vaccination beliefs and attitudes: two experiments manipulating Google output.J Med Internet Res. 2014 Apr 2;16(4):e100. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2642. J Med Internet Res. 2014. PMID: 24694866 Free PMC article.
-
Persuading consumers to form precise search engine queries.AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2009 Nov 14;2009:354-8. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2009. PMID: 20351879 Free PMC article.
-
An alternative screening approach for Google Search identifies an accurate and manageable number of results for a systematic review (case study).Health Info Libr J. 2024 Jun;41(2):149-155. doi: 10.1111/hir.12409. Epub 2021 Nov 4. Health Info Libr J. 2024. PMID: 34734655
-
A review of the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews.Res Synth Methods. 2018 Mar;9(1):89-99. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1275. Epub 2017 Nov 9. Res Synth Methods. 2018. PMID: 29065246 Review.
-
Medical literature search dot com.Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2011 Mar-Apr;77(2):135-40. doi: 10.4103/0378-6323.77451. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2011. PMID: 21393941 Review.
References
-
- Dickersin K, Min YI. NIH clinical trials and publication bias. Online J Curr Clin Trials. 1993;Doc No 50:[4967 words; 53 paragraphs]. - PubMed
-
- Dickersin K. How important is publication bias? A synthesis of available data. AIDS Educ Prev. 1997;9(1 Suppl):15–21. - PubMed
-
- Lefebrve A, Clarke M. Identifying randomised trials. In: Egger M, Davey-Smith G, Altman DG, eds. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Publishing; 2001. p. 69–86.
-
- Paige NM, Apaydin EA, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Mak S, Miake-Lye IM, Begashaw MM, et al. What is the optimal primary care panel size?: A systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2020;172(3):195–201. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources