Literature search on risk factors for sarcoma: PubMed and Google Scholar may be complementary sources
Within the context of a European network dedicated to sarcoma the relevant literature on sarcoma risk factors was collected by searching PubMed (PM) and Google Scholar (GS), the two information storage and retrieval databases which can be accessed without charge. The present study aims to appraise the relative proficiency of PubMed and Google Scholar.FindingsUnlike PubMed, Google Scholar does not allow a choice between "Human"and "Animal"studies, nor between "Classical"and other types of studies.
As a result, searches with Google Scholar produced high numbers of citations that have to be filtered. Google Scholar resulted in a higher sensitivity (proportion of relevant articles, meeting the search criteria), while PubMed in a higher specificity (proportion of lower quality articles not meeting the criteria, that are not retrieved).
Concordance between Google Scholar and PubMed was as low as 8%.
Conclusions: This study focused just on one topic. Although further studies are warranted, PM and GS appear to be complementary and their integration could greatly improve the search of references in medical research.
Author: Giuseppe MastrangeloEmanuela FaddaCarlo RossiEmanuele ZamprognoAlessandra BujaLuca Cegolon
Credits/Source: BMC Research Notes 2010, 3:131
Published on: 2010-05-10
Copyright by the authors listed above - made available via BioMedCentral (Open Access). Please
make sure to read our disclaimer prior to contacting 7thSpace Interactive. To contact our editors, visit our online helpdesk. If you wish submit your own press release, click here.
Social Bookmarking
RETWEET This! | Digg this! | Post to del.icio.us | Post to Furl | Add to Netscape | Add to Yahoo! | Rojo
|
|
