A systematic review case study of urgent and emergency care configuration found citation searching of Web of Science and Google Scholar of similar value.

BACKGROUND

Supplementary search methods, including citation searching, are essential if systematic reviews are to avoid producing biased conclusions. Little evidence exists on how to prioritise databases for citation searching or to establish whether using multiple sources is beneficial.

OBJECTIVES

A systematic review examining urgent and emergency care reconfiguration was used to investigate the utility of citation searching on Web of Science (WOS) and/or Google Scholar (GS).

METHODS

This case study investigated numbers of studies, additional studies and unique studies retrieved from both sources. In addition, the time to search, the ease of adding references to reference management software and obtaining abstracts of studies for screening are briefly considered.

RESULTS

WOS retrieved 62 references after deduplication of the results, 52 being additional references not retrieved during the database searching. GS retrieved 134 unique references with 63 additional references. WOS and GS retrieved the same three additional included studies. WOS was less time intensive to search given the facility to restrict to English language papers and availability of abstracts.

CONCLUSIONS

In a single systematic review case study, citation searching was required to identify all included studies. Citation searching on WOS is more efficient, where a subscription is available. Both databases identified the same studies but GS required additional time to remove non-English language studies and locate abstracts.