Identifying evidence for public health guidance: a comparison of citation searching with Web of Science and Google Scholar

Levay, Paul; Ainsworth, Nicola; Kettle, Rachel; Morgan, Antony

doi:10.1002/jrsm.1158

Cited by 42 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The varied and mixed sources of searched databases in our data set prevent conclusions about the potential impact of these choices on time and work, but others who have done explicit comparisons have noted that using Web of Science is more efficient that Google Scholar, for example. 10 Another limitation, as can be seen from figure 1, is that the data at each stage of literature search and selection are very skewed, making attempts to predict timelines from various factors statistically unsound. Other questions may be better answered with data/analyses other than those we reported but using similar approaches.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo summarise logistical aspects of recently completed systematic reviews that were registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) registry to quantify the time and resources required to complete such projects.DesignMeta-analysis.Data sources and study selectionAll of the 195 registered and completed reviews (status from the PROSPERO registry) with associated publications at the time of our search (1 July 2014).Data extractionAll authors extracted data using registry entries and publication information related to the data sources used, the number of initially retrieved citations, the final number of included studies, the time between registration date to publication date and number of authors involved for completion of each publication. Information related to funding and geographical location was also recorded when reported.ResultsThe mean estimated time to complete the project and publish the review was 67.3 weeks (IQR=42). The number of studies found in the literature searches ranged from 27 to 92 020; the mean yield rate of included studies was 2.94% (IQR=2.5); and the mean number of authors per review was 5, SD=3. Funded reviews took significantly longer to complete and publish (mean=42 vs 26 weeks) and involved more authors and team members (mean=6.8 vs 4.8 people) than those that did not report funding (both p<0.001).ConclusionsSystematic reviews presently take much time and require large amounts of human resources. In the light of the ever-increasing volume of published studies, application of existing computing and informatics technology should be applied to decrease this time and resource burden. We discuss recently published guidelines that provide a framework to make finding and accessing relevant literature less burdensome.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We examine these diverse search systems through the lens of the users that access them and test how well the search facility performs to link the query to the underlying database. We do not test the searchers' ability to formulate such strings/queries and we do not test the completeness of the underlying dataset provided by the search system . This study instead examines the search system as the gatekeeper that mediates between a database of potentially relevant records and a reviewer that wishes to access, retrieve, analyze, and synthesize that information in a systematic, rigorous manner.…”

Section: Methods and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While recall (or sensitivity) is the percentage of relevant article records that are returned in the result set from all relevant records known to exist, precision (or specificity) is the percentage of records in the result set that are relevant. 23,24 While high recall indicates a search contains many of the relevant items, high precision indicates a search retrieves relatively few irrelevant records. 5 Generally, the more recall is improved, the greater the reduction in precision, and the more precision is improved, the worse the effect on recall.…”

Section: Source Quality Requirementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A search system must allow a reviewer to specify queries that search with high recall and precision. While recall (or sensitivity) is the percentage of relevant article records that are returned in the result set from all relevant records known to exist, precision (or specificity) is the percentage of records in the result set that are relevant . While high recall indicates a search contains many of the relevant items, high precision indicates a search retrieves relatively few irrelevant records .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies examining the suitability of search systems for evidence synthesis have focused on a limited number of search systems and/or based their analysis on a review of the search interface, yet without any in‐depth examination of core functionalities that allow reliable query‐based searching . Previous studies have also calculated precision and recall of search systems from data reported by specific evidence‐synthesis studies . This analysis focuses instead on evaluation criteria for systematic reviews across disciplines, following universally accepted conduct guidance (ie, Cochrane, Campbell, and CEE).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources

Gusenbauer

Haddaway

2020

Research Synthesis Methods

1,032

608

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rigorous evidence identification is essential for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (evidence syntheses) because the sample selection of relevant studies determines a review's outcome, validity, and explanatory power. Yet, the search systems allowing access to this evidence provide varying levels of precision, recall, and reproducibility and also demand different levels of effort. To date, it remains unclear which search systems are most appropriate for evidence synthesis and why. Advice on which search engines and bibliographic databases to choose for systematic searches is limited and lacking systematic, empirical performance assessments. This study investigates and compares the systematic search qualities of 28 widely used academic search systems, including Google Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science. A novel, query‐based method tests how well users are able to interact and retrieve records with each system. The study is the first to show the extent to which search systems can effectively and efficiently perform (Boolean) searches with regards to precision, recall, and reproducibility. We found substantial differences in the performance of search systems, meaning that their usability in systematic searches varies. Indeed, only half of the search systems analyzed and only a few Open Access databases can be recommended for evidence syntheses without adding substantial caveats. Particularly, our findings demonstrate why Google Scholar is inappropriate as principal search system. We call for database owners to recognize the requirements of evidence synthesis and for academic journals to reassess quality requirements for systematic reviews. Our findings aim to support researchers in conducting better searches for better evidence synthesis.

show abstract

Mastering the interplay of organizational resilience and sustainability: Insights from a hybrid literature review

Ciasullo,

Chiarini,

Palumbo

2023

Bus Strat Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizational resilience enables the firm to thrive in an increasingly turbulent environment, paving the way for sustainability. Although the implications of organizational resilience on sustainability have been widely discussed in the literature, scholarly knowledge examining the interplay between these two phenomena is fragmented. The article addresses this gap through a hybrid domain‐based literature review falling at the intersection of organizational resilience and sustainability. Drawing on a knowledge core of 51 scientific contributions, we identified four research streams established on five conceptual foundations. The study findings guide us toward an eco‐social interpretation of organizational resilience, whose implications on the firm's viability should be assessed by acknowledging spillovers on environmental sustainability. Management actions to build organizational resilience should follow an ecosystem sustainability orientation. This involves embedding the firm in the eco‐social setting in which it operates, emphasizing its homeostatic exchanges with the environment.

show abstract

Identifying evidence for public health guidance: a comparison of citation searching with Web of Science and Google Scholar

Abstract: WOS is recommended over GS, as citation searching was more effective, while the administrative and screening times and costs were lower.

Cited by 42 publications

References 41 publications

Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry

Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry

Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources

Mastering the interplay of organizational resilience and sustainability: Insights from a hybrid literature review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About