比较Embase、MEDLINE和谷歌学术中120项系统评价的检索覆盖范围、召回率和精确率：一项前瞻性研究。

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

作者信息

Bramer Wichor M, Giustini Dean, Kramer Bianca M R

机构信息

Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Medical Library, PO Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

The University of British Columbia, UBC Biomedical Branch Library, Gordon and Leslie Diamond Health Care Centre, 2775 Laurel Street, Floor 2, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1 M9, Canada.

出版信息

Syst Rev. 2016 Mar 1;5:39. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0215-7.

DOI:10.1186/s13643-016-0215-7

PMID:26932789

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4772334/

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.

摘要

背景

此前，我们报道了谷歌学术（GS）用于系统评价（SR）检索时召回率较低的情况。在此，我们通过比较先前在Embase、MEDLINE和GS中执行的SR检索策略的覆盖范围、召回率和精确率，在一项前瞻性研究中进一步检验我们的结论。

方法

记录来自Embase和MEDLINE的原始检索结果以及GS中由图书馆员介导的SR检索的前1000条结果。一旦针对所得SR的纳入-排除过程完成，就对来自所有三个数据库的检索结果进行筛选，以查找该SR的纳入参考文献。然后对所有三个数据库进行事后检索，以查找原始检索结果中未找到的纳入参考文献。

结果

我们对照原始检索结果检查了来自120项SR的4795条纳入参考文献。GS的覆盖范围很高（97.2%），但略低于Embase和MEDLINE的总和（97.5%）。MEDLINE自身的覆盖范围为92.3%。Embase/MEDLINE组合对所有纳入参考文献的总召回率为81.6%，GS为72.8%，MEDLINE单独为72.6%。然而，只有46.4%的纳入参考文献在前1000条可下载的GS参考文献之中。在检查每项SR的数据时，即使考虑到前1000条检索结果之外列出的纳入参考文献，传统数据库的召回率也优于GS。最后，GS前1000条参考文献的精确率与Embase和MEDLINE组合检索的精确率相当。

结论

尽管对于许多检索而言，GS的总体覆盖范围和召回率较高，但该数据库并未实现如一些研究人员在先前研究中发现的完全覆盖。此外，只能查看GS中的前1000条记录严重降低了其召回率。如果GS能够浏览前1000条记录之外的记录，其召回率将会提高，但仍不足以单独用于SR检索。筛选结果所需的时间也会大幅增加。这些结果支持了我们的观点，即GS以及所研究的其他数据库单独而言，都不是支持系统评价检索的可接受数据库。