谷歌学术中复杂搜索命中次数的变化。
Variation in number of hits for complex searches in Google Scholar.
作者信息
Bramer Wichor Matthijs
出版信息
J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Apr;104(2):143-5. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.104.2.009.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
Google Scholar is often used to search for medical literature. Numbers of results reported by Google Scholar outperform the numbers reported by traditional databases. How reliable are these numbers? Why are often not all available 1,000 references shown?
METHODS
For several complex search strategies used in systematic review projects, the number of citations and the total number of versions were calculated. Several search strategies were followed over a two-year period, registering fluctuations in reported search results.
RESULTS
Changes in numbers of reported search results varied enormously between search strategies and dates. Theories for calculations of the reported and shown number of hits were not proved.
CONCLUSIONS
The number of hits reported in Google Scholar is an unreliable measure. Therefore, its repeatability is problematic, at least when equal results are needed.
摘要
目的
谷歌学术经常被用于搜索医学文献。谷歌学术报告的结果数量优于传统数据库报告的数量。这些数字有多可靠？为什么常常没有显示全部1000条可用参考文献？
方法
对于系统评价项目中使用的几种复杂搜索策略，计算了引用次数和版本总数。在两年时间内跟踪了几种搜索策略，记录报告的搜索结果的波动情况。
结果
报告的搜索结果数量的变化在搜索策略和日期之间差异极大。关于报告和显示的命中数计算的理论未得到证实。
结论
谷歌学术报告的命中数是不可靠的衡量标准。因此，其可重复性存在问题，至少在需要相同结果时是这样。
相似文献
1
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.
2
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.
3
Developing search strategies for clinical practice guidelines in SUMSearch and Google Scholar and assessing their retrieval performance.在SUMSearch和谷歌学术中为临床实践指南制定检索策略并评估其检索性能。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007 Jun 30;7:28. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-28.
4
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.
5
Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough.谷歌学术替代系统文献检索：高相对召回率和精度还不够。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Oct 26;13:131. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-131.
6
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.
7
The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews.在相同的生物医学系统评价检索中谷歌学术与PubMed的比较召回率：对系统评价中使用的检索的综述
Syst Rev. 2013 Dec 23;2:115. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-115.
8
The impact of information skills training on independent literature searching activity and requests for mediated literature searches.信息技能培训对独立文献检索活动和中介文献检索请求的影响。
Health Info Libr J. 2010 Sep;27(3):191-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00871.x.
9
The Role of Google Scholar in Evidence Reviews and Its Applicability to Grey Literature Searching.谷歌学术在循证综述中的作用及其在灰色文献检索中的适用性。
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 17;10(9):e0138237. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138237. eCollection 2015.
10
Google Versus PubMed: Comparison of Google and PubMed's Search Tools for Answering Clinical Questions in the Emergency Department.谷歌与 PubMed 的比较：在急诊科回答临床问题时，谷歌和 PubMed 的搜索工具的比较。
Ann Emerg Med. 2020 Mar;75(3):408-415. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.07.003. Epub 2019 Oct 14.
引用本文的文献
1
A systematic review and qualitative research synthesis of the lived experiences and coping of transgender and gender diverse youth 18 years or younger.对18岁及以下跨性别和性别多样化青少年的生活经历及应对方式进行的系统评价和定性研究综合分析。
Int J Transgend Health. 2024 Jan 12;25(3):352-388. doi: 10.1080/26895269.2023.2295379. eCollection 2024.
2
Radiological Study of Atlas Arch Defects with Meta-Analysis and a Proposed New Classification.寰椎弓缺陷的放射学研究：荟萃分析及新分类建议
Asian Spine J. 2023 Oct;17(5):975-984. doi: 10.31616/asj.2023.0030. Epub 2023 Aug 28.
3
The prevalence of Stafne bone cavity: A meta-analysis of 355,890 individuals.斯塔夫内骨腔的患病率：对355890人的荟萃分析。
J Dent Sci. 2023 Apr;18(2):594-603. doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2022.08.022. Epub 2022 Sep 7.
4
AI ethics with Chinese characteristics? Concerns and preferred solutions in Chinese academia.具有中国特色的人工智能伦理？中国学术界的担忧与首选解决方案
AI Soc. 2022 Oct 17:1-14. doi: 10.1007/s00146-022-01578-w.
5
The effects of COVID-19 on the rehabilitation of persons with aphasia: A scoping review.COVID-19 对失语症患者康复的影响：范围综述。
S Afr J Commun Disord. 2022 Aug 4;69(2):e1-e9. doi: 10.4102/sajcd.v69i2.920.
6
The Supraclavicular Artery Island Flap for Pharynx Reconstruction.用于咽重建的锁骨下动脉岛状皮瓣
J Clin Med. 2022 May 31;11(11):3126. doi: 10.3390/jcm11113126.
7
Commentary to Gusenbauer and Haddaway 2020: Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar and PubMed.古森鲍尔和哈达威 2020 年评论：评估谷歌学术和 PubMed 的检索质量。
Res Synth Methods. 2021 Mar;12(2):126-135. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1456. Epub 2020 Oct 8.
8
Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources.哪些学术搜索系统适用于系统评价或荟萃分析？评估 Google Scholar、PubMed 和其他 26 个资源的检索质量。
Res Synth Methods. 2020 Mar;11(2):181-217. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1378. Epub 2020 Jan 28.
9
Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review.图书馆员在系统评价中的作用：一项范围综述
J Med Libr Assoc. 2018 Jan;106(1):46-56. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2018.82. Epub 2018 Jan 2.
10
Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines.兽医期刊中系统评价对系统评价与Meta分析优先报告条目（PRISMA）文献检索报告指南的遵循情况。
J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Jul;105(3):233-239. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2017.246. Epub 2017 Jul 1.
本文引用的文献
1
The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews.在相同的生物医学系统评价检索中谷歌学术与PubMed的比较召回率：对系统评价中使用的检索的综述
Syst Rev. 2013 Dec 23;2:115. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-115.
Zotero 插件