• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

医学文献检索:PubMed 和 Google Scholar 的比较。

Medical literature searches: a comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar.

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX, USA.

出版信息

Health Info Libr J. 2012 Sep;29(3):214-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2012.00992.x. Epub 2012 Jun 19.

DOI:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2012.00992.x
PMID:22925384
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Medical literature searches provide critical information for clinicians. However, the best strategy for identifying relevant high-quality literature is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

We compared search results using PubMed and Google Scholar on four clinical questions and analysed these results with respect to article relevance and quality.

METHODS

Abstracts from the first 20 citations for each search were classified into three relevance categories. We used the weighted kappa statistic to analyse reviewer agreement and nonparametric rank tests to compare the number of citations for each article and the corresponding journals' impact factors.

RESULTS

Reviewers ranked 67.6% of PubMed articles and 80% of Google Scholar articles as at least possibly relevant (P = 0.116) with high agreement (all kappa P-values < 0.01). Google Scholar articles had a higher median number of citations (34 vs. 1.5, P < 0.0001) and came from higher impact factor journals (5.17 vs. 3.55, P = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

PubMed searches and Google Scholar searches often identify different articles. In this study, Google Scholar articles were more likely to be classified as relevant, had higher numbers of citations and were published in higher impact factor journals. The identification of frequently cited articles using Google Scholar for searches probably has value for initial literature searches.

摘要

背景

医学文献检索为临床医生提供了关键信息。然而,确定相关高质量文献的最佳策略尚不清楚。

目的

我们比较了使用 PubMed 和 Google Scholar 对四个临床问题进行搜索的结果,并根据文章的相关性和质量对这些结果进行了分析。

方法

对每个搜索的前 20 条引文的摘要进行了分类,分为三个相关性类别。我们使用加权 kappa 统计来分析评论者的一致性,并使用非参数秩检验来比较每篇文章的引文数量和相应期刊的影响因子。

结果

评论者将 67.6%的 PubMed 文章和 80%的 Google Scholar 文章至少归类为可能相关(P = 0.116),一致性很高(所有 kappa P 值均<0.01)。Google Scholar 文章的引文中位数更高(34 比 1.5,P < 0.0001),且来自更高影响因子的期刊(5.17 比 3.55,P = 0.036)。

结论

PubMed 搜索和 Google Scholar 搜索经常会识别出不同的文章。在这项研究中,Google Scholar 文章更有可能被归类为相关,引用数量更多,且发表在更高影响因子的期刊上。使用 Google Scholar 进行频繁引用文章的识别可能对初始文献搜索有价值。

相似文献

1
Medical literature searches: a comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar.医学文献检索:PubMed 和 Google Scholar 的比较。
Health Info Libr J. 2012 Sep;29(3):214-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2012.00992.x. Epub 2012 Jun 19.
2
Google Scholar versus PubMed in locating primary literature to answer drug-related questions.在查找用于回答药物相关问题的原始文献方面,谷歌学术与医学期刊数据库(PubMed)的比较。
Ann Pharmacother. 2009 Mar;43(3):478-84. doi: 10.1345/aph.1L223. Epub 2009 Mar 3.
3
Comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar literature searches.PubMed 与 Google Scholar 文献检索比较。
Respir Care. 2010 May;55(5):578-83.
4
Variation in number of hits for complex searches in Google Scholar.谷歌学术中复杂搜索命中次数的变化。
J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Apr;104(2):143-5. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.2.009.
5
Does open access in ophthalmology affect how articles are subsequently cited in research?眼科领域的开放获取会影响文章随后在研究中的被引用方式吗?
Ophthalmology. 2009 Aug;116(8):1425-31. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2008.12.052. Epub 2009 Jul 9.
6
Dissemination of research in clinical nursing journals.临床护理期刊中的研究传播
J Clin Nurs. 2008 Jan;17(2):149-56. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.01975.x.
7
Citations to trials of nicotine replacement therapy were biased toward positive results and high-impact-factor journals.对尼古丁替代疗法试验的引用偏向于积极结果和高影响因子期刊。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Aug;62(8):831-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.015. Epub 2009 Jan 6.
8
Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals.对发表在普通医学期刊上的文章在科学网、Scopus和谷歌学术中被引用情况的比较。
JAMA. 2009 Sep 9;302(10):1092-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1307.
9
Information sources for developing the nursing literature.用于发展护理文献的信息来源。
Int J Nurs Stud. 2008 Apr;45(4):580-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.10.005. Epub 2006 Dec 4.
10
Assessing the impact of paediatric oncology publications using three citation databases.用三个引文数据库评估儿科肿瘤学出版物的影响。
Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2011 Jan;56(1):152-3. doi: 10.1002/pbc.22751.

引用本文的文献

1
From abstracts to published articles: Assessing the scientific publications from the annual meetings of the German Spine Society (DWG) in 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2022.从摘要到发表文章:评估2017年、2018年、2019年和2022年德国脊柱协会(DWG)年会的科学出版物。
Brain Spine. 2025 Apr 25;5:104242. doi: 10.1016/j.bas.2025.104242. eCollection 2025.
2
Trends and collaborations in discoid lupus erythematosus research: a bibliometric analysis from 2010 to 2024.盘状红斑狼疮研究的趋势与合作:2010年至2024年的文献计量分析
Front Med (Lausanne). 2025 Jun 20;12:1556976. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1556976. eCollection 2025.
3
Digital health technologies and self-efficacy in Parkinson's: a scoping review.
帕金森病中的数字健康技术与自我效能:一项范围综述
BMJ Open. 2025 Jan 21;15(1):e088616. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088616.
4
Supporting the Frontlines: A Scoping Review Addressing the Health Challenges of Military Personnel and Veterans.支援前线:一项关于军事人员和退伍军人健康挑战的范围审查
Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Oct 31;11(21):2870. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11212870.
5
Google Scholar as a Sole Literature Source for Meta-analyses in Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery.谷歌学术作为耳鼻咽喉头颈外科学元分析的唯一文献来源。
Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2023 Jun;75(2):864-870. doi: 10.1007/s12070-023-03532-8. Epub 2023 Feb 10.
6
Impact of digital technologies on self-efficacy in people with Parkinson's: a scoping review protocol.数字技术对帕金森病患者自我效能影响的系统评价方案
BMJ Open. 2023 Mar 23;13(3):e069929. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069929.
7
Palliative and End-of-Life Care Service Models: To What Extent Are Consumer Perspectives Considered?姑息治疗与临终关怀服务模式:消费者视角在多大程度上得到了考虑?
Healthcare (Basel). 2021 Sep 28;9(10):1286. doi: 10.3390/healthcare9101286.
8
The Impact of COVID-19 School Closure on Child and Adolescent Health: A Rapid Systematic Review.新冠疫情期间学校关闭对儿童和青少年健康的影响:一项快速系统评价
Children (Basel). 2021 May 19;8(5):415. doi: 10.3390/children8050415.
9
MEDLINE search retrieval issues: A longitudinal query analysis of five vendor platforms.MEDLINE 检索问题:五个供应商平台的纵向查询分析。
PLoS One. 2021 May 6;16(5):e0234221. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234221. eCollection 2021.
10
The yield and usefulness of PAIN and PubMed databases for accessing research evidence on pain management: a randomized crossover trial.用于获取疼痛管理研究证据的PAIN数据库和PubMed数据库的产出及实用性:一项随机交叉试验
Arch Physiother. 2021 Apr 1;11(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s40945-021-00100-7.