谷歌学术的涵盖范围是否足以单独用于系统评价。
Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews.
机构信息
Institute of Occupational Health, Rouen University Hospital and University of Rouen, 1 rue de Germont, 76000, Rouen, France.
出版信息
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013 Jan 9;13:7. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-7.
BACKGROUND
In searches for clinical trials and systematic reviews, it is said that Google Scholar (GS) should never be used in isolation, but in addition to PubMed, Cochrane, and other trusted sources of information. We therefore performed a study to assess the coverage of GS specifically for the studies included in systematic reviews and evaluate if GS was sensitive enough to be used alone for systematic reviews.
METHODS
All the original studies included in 29 systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database Syst Rev or in the JAMA in 2009 were gathered in a gold standard database. GS was searched for all these studies one by one to assess the percentage of studies which could have been identified by searching only GS.
RESULTS
All the 738 original studies included in the gold standard database were retrieved in GS (100%).
CONCLUSION
The coverage of GS for the studies included in the systematic reviews is 100%. If the authors of the 29 systematic reviews had used only GS, no reference would have been missed. With some improvement in the research options, to increase its precision, GS could become the leading bibliographic database in medicine and could be used alone for systematic reviews.
背景
在搜索临床试验和系统评价时，据说不应单独使用谷歌学术（GS），而应结合 PubMed、Cochrane 及其他可靠信息来源。因此，我们进行了一项研究，评估 GS 对系统评价中纳入研究的覆盖程度，并评估 GS 是否足够灵敏，以便单独用于系统评价。
方法
将 2009 年发表在 Cochrane 数据库系统评价或 JAMA 杂志上的 29 篇系统评价中所有的原始研究纳入黄金标准数据库。逐一在 GS 中搜索所有这些研究，以评估仅通过搜索 GS 可以识别的研究比例。
结果
黄金标准数据库中包含的所有 738 项原始研究都可以在 GS 中检索到（100%）。
结论
GS 对系统评价中纳入研究的覆盖率为 100%。如果这 29 篇系统评价的作者仅使用 GS，就不会遗漏任何参考文献。通过改进一些研究选项，提高其精准度，GS 可以成为医学领域的主要文献数据库，并可单独用于系统评价。
Zotero 插件