This information is over 2 years old. Information was current at time of publication.{"id":2662,"date":"2009-09-25T08:33:13","date_gmt":"2009-09-25T13:33:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.hsls.pitt.edu\/updatereport\/?p=2662"},"modified":"2009-09-25T08:33:13","modified_gmt":"2009-09-25T13:33:13","slug":"google-scholar-vs-pubmed-for-health-sciences-literature-searching","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/info.hsls.pitt.edu\/updatereport\/google-scholar-vs-pubmed-for-health-sciences-literature-searching\/","title":{"rendered":"Google Scholar vs. PubMed for Health Sciences Literature Searching"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the 18 months since I last taught a class about Google Scholar<\/a> vs. PubMed<\/a>, Google has become an even more pervasive presence on the Web. Revisiting Scholar in a Google world, how does it stack up against PubMed\u2212no slouch itself thanks to continuing innovations and improvements?<\/p>\n

To a searcher accustomed to PubMed\u2019s Lexus engine, Scholar still rides like a go-kart. Search results are delivered in round numbers (\u201cabout 127,000\u201d). You can\u2019t limit search results just to articles, so you may puzzle over the kind of item you are looking at (conference paper? book?). With no controlled vocabulary, a searcher must anticipate all the different terms an author might use to articulate a particular concept. And there is no search history, making it harder to repeat and document searches.
\nThe absence of standardized journal names causes inconsistencies. Search PubMed for either Nature Genetics or Nat Genet as journal title, and you retrieve 5,336 articles. In Scholar, Nat Genet as publication title retrieves about 5,630 items\u2014but Nature Genetics retrieves about 10,400.<\/p>\n

But Scholar\u2019s biggest drawback is its vague denominator. Only Google knows its total number of records and names and included dates of covered journals. You can limit results to a subject area, but there is no information on how these are defined.<\/p>\n

\"PubMed\"By contrast, PubMed\u2019s scope is clearly documented: 17,764,826 records (2009 baseline) from 5,398 journals back to 1949. From its link to the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Journals database<\/a>, it is easy to determine whether and how far back a journal is covered and its standardized title. Records have a consistent structure (title, author, source, abstract, etc.) and can be fully displayed. With controlled vocabulary MeSH<\/a> (Medical Subject Headings), you can search concepts, not just keywords. Search for the MeSH concept stomach neoplasms and get articles whose authors use the terms gastric cancer and gastric neoplasms.<\/p>\n

Other PubMed tools include Clinical Queries<\/a> and Single Citation Matcher<\/a>. The NCBI environment provides links to molecular biology and genetics databases and to NIH\u2019s free PubMed Central repository. Access PubMed through the \u201cQuick Link\u201d on the HSLS home page<\/a>, and you\u2019ll automatically get full-text links specific to the University of Pittsburgh.<\/p>\n

\"Google\"So what does Scholar offer that PubMed does not? It isn\u2019t the only product with multidisciplinary coverage (try Web of Science<\/a> or Scopus<\/a>). Besides journal articles, Scholar has book, scholarly Web site, and conference proceeding records, but this is not unique either.<\/p>\n

Scholar\u2019s biggest plus is that it makes full-text articles completely searchable, letting you dig up details like place or personal names that might not surface in a PubMed search. PubMed records may include a link to full text that your institution subscribes to, but never the full text itself. Other Scholar pluses:<\/p>\n