319 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23948488)
1. Retrieving clinical evidence: a comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar for quick clinical searches.
Shariff SZ; Bejaimal SA; Sontrop JM; Iansavichus AV; Haynes RB; Weir MA; Garg AX
J Med Internet Res; 2013 Aug; 15(8):e164. PubMed ID: 23948488
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Google Scholar versus PubMed in locating primary literature to answer drug-related questions.
Freeman MK; Lauderdale SA; Kendrach MG; Woolley TW
Ann Pharmacother; 2009 Mar; 43(3):478-84. PubMed ID: 19261965
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Impact of PubMed search filters on the retrieval of evidence by physicians.
Shariff SZ; Sontrop JM; Haynes RB; Iansavichus AV; McKibbon KA; Wilczynski NL; Weir MA; Speechley MR; Thind A; Garg AX
CMAJ; 2012 Feb; 184(3):E184-90. PubMed ID: 22249990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Citation searches are more sensitive than keyword searches to identify studies using specific measurement instruments.
Linder SK; Kamath GR; Pratt GF; Saraykar SS; Volk RJ
J Clin Epidemiol; 2015 Apr; 68(4):412-7. PubMed ID: 25554521
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The comparative recall of Google Scholar versus PubMed in identical searches for biomedical systematic reviews: a review of searches used in systematic reviews.
Bramer WM; Giustini D; Kramer BM; Anderson P
Syst Rev; 2013 Dec; 2():115. PubMed ID: 24360284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar literature searches.
Anders ME; Evans DP
Respir Care; 2010 May; 55(5):578-83. PubMed ID: 20420728
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources.
Gusenbauer M; Haddaway NR
Res Synth Methods; 2020 Mar; 11(2):181-217. PubMed ID: 31614060
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Medical literature searches: a comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar.
Nourbakhsh E; Nugent R; Wang H; Cevik C; Nugent K
Health Info Libr J; 2012 Sep; 29(3):214-22. PubMed ID: 22925384
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study.
Bramer WM; Rethlefsen ML; Kleijnen J; Franco OH
Syst Rev; 2017 Dec; 6(1):245. PubMed ID: 29208034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Sensitivity and predictive value of 15 PubMed search strategies to answer clinical questions rated against full systematic reviews.
Agoritsas T; Merglen A; Courvoisier DS; Combescure C; Garin N; Perrier A; Perneger TV
J Med Internet Res; 2012 Jun; 14(3):e85. PubMed ID: 22693047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Developing search strategies for clinical practice guidelines in SUMSearch and Google Scholar and assessing their retrieval performance.
Haase A; Follmann M; Skipka G; Kirchner H
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2007 Jun; 7():28. PubMed ID: 17603909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Database selection and data gathering methods in systematic reviews of qualitative research regarding diabetes mellitus - an explorative study.
Justesen T; Freyberg J; Schultz ANØ
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2021 Apr; 21(1):94. PubMed ID: 33941105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough.
Boeker M; Vach W; Motschall E
BMC Med Res Methodol; 2013 Oct; 13():131. PubMed ID: 24160679
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Supplementary strategies identified additional eligible studies in qualitative systematic reviews.
Frandsen TF; Eriksen MB
J Clin Epidemiol; 2023 Jul; 159():85-91. PubMed ID: 37201687
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Information sources for obesity prevention policy research: a review of systematic reviews.
Hanneke R; Young SK
Syst Rev; 2017 Aug; 6(1):156. PubMed ID: 28789703
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Literature search on risk factors for sarcoma: PubMed and Google Scholar may be complementary sources.
Mastrangelo G; Fadda E; Rossi CR; Zamprogno E; Buja A; Cegolon L
BMC Res Notes; 2010 May; 3():131. PubMed ID: 20459746
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A comparison of the performance of seven key bibliographic databases in identifying all relevant systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension.
Rathbone J; Carter M; Hoffmann T; Glasziou P
Syst Rev; 2016 Feb; 5():27. PubMed ID: 26862061
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Is the coverage of Google Scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews.
Gehanno JF; Rollin L; Darmoni S
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak; 2013 Jan; 13():7. PubMed ID: 23302542
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia.
Osborne SR; Alston LV; Bolton KA; Whelan J; Reeve E; Wong Shee A; Browne J; Walker T; Versace VL; Allender S; Nichols M; Backholer K; Goodwin N; Lewis S; Dalton H; Prael G; Curtin M; Brooks R; Verdon S; Crockett J; Hodgins G; Walsh S; Lyle DM; Thompson SC; Browne LJ; Knight S; Pit SW; Jones M; Gillam MH; Leach MJ; Gonzalez-Chica DA; Muyambi K; Eshetie T; Tran K; May E; Lieschke G; Parker V; Smith A; Hayes C; Dunlop AJ; Rajappa H; White R; Oakley P; Holliday S
Med J Aust; 2020 Dec; 213 Suppl 11():S3-S32.e1. PubMed ID: 33314144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses.
Falagas ME; Pitsouni EI; Malietzis GA; Pappas G
FASEB J; 2008 Feb; 22(2):338-42. PubMed ID: 17884971
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
