@Article{信息:doi 10.2196 / / jmir。2624，作者=“Shariff, Salimah Z and Bejaimal, Shayna AD and Sontrop, Jessica M and Iansavichus, Arthur V and Haynes, R Brian and Weir, Matthew A and Garg, Amit X”，标题=“检索临床证据:PubMed和谷歌学者快速临床搜索的比较”，期刊=“J Med Internet Res”，年=“2013”，月=“8”，日=“15”，卷=“15”，数=“8”，页=“e164”，关键词=“信息传播/方法;信息存储与检索;医疗;图书馆学;PubMed;谷歌学者;背景:医生经常在PubMed上搜索信息来指导病人的护理。最近，谷歌Scholar作为另一个免费访问的书目数据库而受到欢迎。目的:比较PubMed和谷歌Scholar的搜索性能。 Methods: We surveyed nephrologists (kidney specialists) and provided each with a unique clinical question derived from 100 renal therapy systematic reviews. Each physician provided the search terms they would type into a bibliographic database to locate evidence to answer the clinical question. We executed each of these searches in PubMed and Google Scholar and compared results for the first 40 records retrieved (equivalent to 2 default search pages in PubMed). We evaluated the recall (proportion of relevant articles found) and precision (ratio of relevant to nonrelevant articles) of the searches performed in PubMed and Google Scholar. Primary studies included in the systematic reviews served as the reference standard for relevant articles. We further documented whether relevant articles were available as free full-texts. Results: Compared with PubMed, the average search in Google Scholar retrieved twice as many relevant articles (PubMed: 11{\%}; Google Scholar: 22{\%}; P<.001). Precision was similar in both databases (PubMed: 6{\%}; Google Scholar: 8{\%}; P=.07). Google Scholar provided significantly greater access to free full-text publications (PubMed: 5{\%}; Google Scholar: 14{\%}; P<.001). Conclusions: For quick clinical searches, Google Scholar returns twice as many relevant articles as PubMed and provides greater access to free full-text articles. ", issn="14388871", doi="10.2196/jmir.2624", url="//www.mybigtv.com/2013/8/e164/", url="https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2624", url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23948488" }