206
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Recent research indicates a high recall in Google Scholar searches for systematic reviews. These reports raised high expectations of Google Scholar as a unified and easy to use search interface. However, studies on the coverage of Google Scholar rarely used the search interface in a realistic approach but instead merely checked for the existence of gold standard references. In addition, the severe limitations of the Google Search interface must be taken into consideration when comparing with professional literature retrieval tools.

          The objectives of this work are to measure the relative recall and precision of searches with Google Scholar under conditions which are derived from structured search procedures conventional in scientific literature retrieval; and to provide an overview of current advantages and disadvantages of the Google Scholar search interface in scientific literature retrieval.

          Methods

          General and MEDLINE-specific search strategies were retrieved from 14 Cochrane systematic reviews. Cochrane systematic review search strategies were translated to Google Scholar search expression as good as possible under consideration of the original search semantics. The references of the included studies from the Cochrane reviews were checked for their inclusion in the result sets of the Google Scholar searches. Relative recall and precision were calculated.

          Results

          We investigated Cochrane reviews with a number of included references between 11 and 70 with a total of 396 references. The Google Scholar searches resulted in sets between 4,320 and 67,800 and a total of 291,190 hits. The relative recall of the Google Scholar searches had a minimum of 76.2% and a maximum of 100% (7 searches). The precision of the Google Scholar searches had a minimum of 0.05% and a maximum of 0.92%. The overall relative recall for all searches was 92.9%, the overall precision was 0.13%.

          Conclusion

          The reported relative recall must be interpreted with care. It is a quality indicator of Google Scholar confined to an experimental setting which is unavailable in systematic retrieval due to the severe limitations of the Google Scholar search interface. Currently, Google Scholar does not provide necessary elements for systematic scientific literature retrieval such as tools for incremental query optimization, export of a large number of references, a visual search builder or a history function. Google Scholar is not ready as a professional searching tool for tasks where structured retrieval methodology is necessary.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research.

          Growing evidence demonstrates widespread deficiencies in the reporting of health research studies. The EQUATOR Network is an international initiative that aims to enhance the reliability and value of the published health research literature. EQUATOR provides resources, education and training to facilitate good research reporting and assists in the development, dissemination and implementation of robust reporting guidelines. This paper presents a collection of tools and guidelines available on the EQUATOR website (http://www.equator-network.org) that have been developed to increase the accuracy and transparency of health research reporting.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Detection of gene pathways with predictive power for breast cancer prognosis

            Background Prognosis is of critical interest in breast cancer research. Biomedical studies suggest that genomic measurements may have independent predictive power for prognosis. Gene profiling studies have been conducted to search for predictive genomic measurements. Genes have the inherent pathway structure, where pathways are composed of multiple genes with coordinated functions. The goal of this study is to identify gene pathways with predictive power for breast cancer prognosis. Since our goal is fundamentally different from that of existing studies, a new pathway analysis method is proposed. Results The new method advances beyond existing alternatives along the following aspects. First, it can assess the predictive power of gene pathways, whereas existing methods tend to focus on model fitting accuracy only. Second, it can account for the joint effects of multiple genes in a pathway, whereas existing methods tend to focus on the marginal effects of genes. Third, it can accommodate multiple heterogeneous datasets, whereas existing methods analyze a single dataset only. We analyze four breast cancer prognosis studies and identify 97 pathways with significant predictive power for prognosis. Important pathways missed by alternative methods are identified. Conclusions The proposed method provides a useful alternative to existing pathway analysis methods. Identified pathways can provide further insights into breast cancer prognosis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies.

              Complex and highly sensitive electronic literature search strategies are required for systematic reviews; however, no guidelines exist for their peer review. Poor searches may fail to identify existing evidence because of inadequate recall (sensitivity) or increase the resource requirements of reviews as a result of inadequate precision. Our objective was to create an annotated checklist for electronic search strategy peer review. A systematic review of the library and information retrieval literature for important elements in electronic search strategies was conducted, along with a survey of individuals experienced in systematic review searching. Six elements with a strong consensus as to their importance in peer review were accurate translation of the research question into search concepts, correct choice of Boolean operators and of line numbers, adequate translation of the search strategy for each database, inclusion of relevant subject headings, and absence of spelling errors. Seven additional elements had partial support and are included in this guideline. This evidence-based guideline facilitates the improvement of search quality through peer review, and thus the improvement in quality of systematic reviews. It is relevant for librarians/information specialists, journal editors, developers of knowledge translation tools, research organizations, and funding bodies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Med Res Methodol
                BMC Medical Research Methodology
                BioMed Central
                1471-2288
                2013
                26 October 2013
                : 13
                : 131
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Medical Biometry and Medical Informatics, University Medical Center Freiburg, Stefan-Meier-Str. 26, Freiburg i. Br. 79104, Germany
                Article
                1471-2288-13-131
                10.1186/1471-2288-13-131
                3840556
                24160679
                587c2ba6-507c-4008-b2ea-7b66b35896c8
                Copyright © 2013 Boeker et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 17 June 2013
                : 10 October 2013
                Categories
                Research Article

                Medicine
                methods,literature search,systematic,information storage and retrieval,google scholar,medline
                Medicine
                methods, literature search, systematic, information storage and retrieval, google scholar, medline

                Comments

                Comment on this article