Google Scholar Versus PubMed in Locating Primary Literature to Answer Drug-Related Questions

Abstract

Spanish

French

Background:

Google Scholar linked more visitors to biomedical journal Web sites than did PubMed after the database's initial release; however, its usefulness in locating primary literature articles is unknown.

Objective:

To assess in both databases the availability of primary literature target articles; total number of citations; availability of free, full-text journal articles; and number of primary literature target articles retrieved by year within the first 100 citations of the search results.

Methods:

Drug information question reviews published in The Annals of Pharmacotherapy Drug Information Rounds column served as targets to determine the retrieval ability of Google Scholar and PubMed searches. Reviews printed in this column from January 2006 to June 2007 were eligible for study inclusion. Articles were chosen if at least 2 key words of the printed article were included in the PubMed Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) database, and these terms were searched in both databases.

Results:

Twenty-two of 33 (67%) eligible Drug Information Rounds articles met the inclusion criteria. The median number of primary literature articles used in each of these articles was 6.5 (IQR 4.8, 8.3; mean ± SD 8 ± 5.4). No significant differences were found for the mean number of target primary literature articles located within the first 100 citations in Google Scholar and PubMed searches (5.1 ± 3.9 vs 5.3 ± 3.3; p = 0.868). Google Scholar searches located more total results than PubMed (2211.6 ± 3999.5 vs 44.2 ± 47.4; p = 0.019). The availability of free, full-text journal articles per Drug Information Rounds article was similar between the databases (1.8 ± 1.7 vs 2.3 ± 1.7; p = 0.325). More primary literature articles published prior to 2000 were located with Google Scholar searches compared with PubMed (62.8% vs 34.9%; p = 0.017); however, no statistically significant differences between the databases were observed for articles published after 2000 (66.4 vs 77.1; p = 0.074).

Conclusions:

No significant differences were identified in the number of target primary literature articles located between databases. PubMed searches yielded fewer total citations than Google Scholar results; however, PubMed appears to be more specific than Google Scholar for locating relevant primary literature articles.

Keywords

Google Scholar information storage and retrieval PubMed

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

About Google Scholar. http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/about.html (accessed 2007 Jun 14).

Greenwald

. …And a diagnostic test was performed. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:2089–90.

Tang

, Ng

. Googling for a diagnosis—use of Google as a diagnostic aid: Internet based study. BMJ 2006; 333:1143–5.

Giustini

. How Google is changing medicine. BMJ 2005; 31:1487–9.

PubMed overview. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query/static/overview.html#Introduction (accessed 2007 Jun 15).

Stewart

, Kuppersmith

, Moore

. Searching the medical literature on the Internet. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2002; 35:1163–74.

Shultz

. Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar. J Med Libr Assoc 2008; 95:442–5.

Haase

, Follmann

, Skiuipka

, Kirchner

. Developing search strategies for clinical practice guidelines in SUMSearch and Google Scholar and assessing their retrieval performance. BMC Biomed Res Methodology 2007; 7. www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2288-7-28.pdf (accessed 2008 Jan 9).

About SumSearch Website. http://sumsearch.uthscsa.edu/details.htm. (accessed 2007 Dec 27).

10.

Annals of Pharmacotherapy. Author guidelines. www.theannals.com/misc/information.pdf (accessed 2007 Jan 9).

11.

Freeman

, Lauderdale

, Kendrach

, Schrimsher

. Factors associated with database searching among pharmacy faculty and students: PubMed vs. Google Scholar. Presented at: American College of Clinical Pharmacy Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, October 16, 2007.

12.

Bakkalbasi

, Bauer

, Glover

, Wang

. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomedical Digital Libraries 2006; 3. www.bio-diglib.com/content/pdf/1742-5581-3-7.pdf (accessed 2008 Jan 9).

13.

Vine

. Google Scholar. J Med Libr Assoc 2006; 94(1):97–99.

14.

Henderson

. Google Scholar: a source for clinicians? CMAJ. 2005: 172:1549–50.

15.

Google Scholar is a full year late indexing PubMed content. www.workingfaster.com/sitelines/archives/2005_02.html#000282 (accessed 2007 Jun 14).