A Systematic Review on the Sufficiency of PubMed and Google Scholar for Biosciences. - mauriceling/mauriceling.github.io GitHub Wiki

Citation: Teo, YH, Ling, MHT. 2020. A Systematic Review on the Sufficiency of PubMed and Google Scholar for Biosciences. Acta Scientific Medical Sciences 4(12): 03-08.

Link to [abstract] and [PDF].

Here is the permanent [PDF] and [data set] links to my archive.

NCBI PubMed is the de facto bibliographic database for biosciences but has been shown to be insufficient for the purpose of systematic review and meta-analysis, which requires comprehensiveness. Among bibliographic databases, Google Scholar is most comprehensive. With arguments that PubMed, supplemented with Google Scholar, may be sufficient for a systematic review in biosciences; we reviewed 18 studies to determine whether a combination of PubMed and Google Scholar is sufficient. Current literature shows that the combined coverage of Google Scholar and PubMed is between 85% to 98% of the universe of bioscience articles, which may be sufficient. However, Google Scholar alone is not sufficient as the concordance between PubMed and Google Scholar is 30.3% with 20.3% of the articles unique to PubMed.