A look at Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scirus: comparisons and recommendations

Google Scholar is not enough to be used alone for systematic reviews

“…One librarian said that "… plug-in-the-keywordand-hope-for-the-best tools like Google Scholar are poor choices for serious search questions such as clinical queries, bibliographic reviews, comprehensive literature searches, or other questions that require a more sophisticated approach" [7]. Expert searchers were admonished to use trusted databases such as the Cochrane Library, PubMed and Embase when literature reviews were required (i.e., for grants, clinical trials and systematic reviews) [8]. The early buzz of GS eventually ebbed and was replaced by detailed comparisons against other tools such as PubMed and Scirus [9].…”

Dyniqx: A novel meta-search engine for metadata based cross search

“…Dyniqx is the best rated search engine by users, and GS is the second best rated search engines with statistical significance respectively. We rate the quality of the answers given by each searcher to questions in each domain by choosing from very poor (-2), poor (-1), neutral (0), good (1), or very good (2). We average the quality ratings for three searchers' answers using each search engine on each domain and summarize the results in Table 8.…”

“…[2] shows that PubMed has better coverage on scientific papers than GS, since GS tends to favor older publications which have attracted more citations. However, GS has features such as citations, abstract, keyword highlighting, and PageRank based ranking algorithms to outweigh the benefits of PubMed in our evaluation.…”

Electronic Resources for Searching Health Scientific Information: Database Publication Type

“…In view of these results, we believe that this is an interesting line of work, from which it may be possible to produce contributions aimed at creating guidelines for the use of each of these resources in order to optimize efficient searches (since each of these has its own search methodologies), to compare two or more databases for which there is already evidence (Giustini & Barsky, 2005;Shultz, 2007), among others. RESUMEN: A pesar de la gran cantidad de información disponible en Internet, la obtención de información científica váli-da y evidente puede no ser una tarea sencilla.…”