EXPERT SEARCHING

SO You Want to Use Google

Submitted by Dolores Zegar Judkins AHIp OHSU Library Oregon Health amp Science University-Portland edited by Rebecca N Jerome

Google is the database of choice for increasing numbers of health sciences students and professionals Unofficial surshyveys show that the majority of students use Google rather than PubMed or CINAHL partly because of their familshyiarity with Google [1] A number of papers have noted that the success rate for Google is significant when searching

for very specific and hard-to-find topics [2-8] It appears that this is mainly due to the fact that Google searches more full text than PubMed does

Table 1 lists the relative advantages and disadvantages of CINAHL PubMed Google and Google Scholar

Table 1 Database Characteristics bull J1 bull 0 00shyIi0 0 ~ 01-101 0 O~middotO ~ISI -

ClNAHL Well indexed using CINAHL terminology uses explosions of Access limited to items in the database does not search full text terms ta include more specific terms includes 2960 journa ls in of most items nursing and allied health as well as books dissertations and other items very current searches titles abstracts and indexing terms many ways of sorting retrieval can download into bibliographic managers can select citations to download or print

PubMed Well indexed using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) uses Access limited almost exclusively to basic and health sciences explosions of terms to include more specific terms includes journals does not search full text of articles 13410 journals in the basic and health sciences very current includes citations to electronic publications prior to print many ways of sorting retrieval can download into bibl iographic managers can select citations to download or print

Google Searches articles books web pages and more has advanced No indexing terms huge retrieval for almost any topic no ability search option to limit search by date document type language to select citations for downloading or printing cannot limit to domain and more journal articles

Google Searches journals books and theses can download individual No indexing terms huge retrieval for almost any topic no ability

Scholar citations into bibliographic managers contains citing information to select citations for downloading or printing only first 1000 with links to items citing a specific item citations can be viewed built-in relevancy rankings based on

times-cited may result in a bias toward older literature

Comparisons of searches in these resources present interesting results Table 2 shows four searches that were performed on December 32009

Table 2 Search Examples

CINAHL - Google

No of No of No of No of citations First citation citations First citation citations First citation citations First citation

Asthma in 567 in basic November 2076 December 11800000 October 2005 79000 December 2000 pregnancy search 467 2009 Journal 2009 wwwemedicine American Journal of

in advanced of Pediatrics Obstetrics and healthcom Medicine (first 2009

search Gynecology citation is 18th)

Marijuana 6 in basic June 2008 77 September 1340000 May 2006 14400 2008 Eurapean and lung search 12 Clinical Journal 2009 La revue wwwwashington Respiratory Journal cancer in advanced of Oncology du praticien postcom (first 2009 citation is

search Nursing 372nd)

Pompe 46 October 2009 1061 December 103000 wwwpompe 13700 January 1963 disease Journal of 2009 com (no date) Biochemical Journal

Pediatrics Pediatrics (first 2009 citation is 196th)

In all the searches the top citations were relevant to some extent PubMed always had the most precise list with the most recent citations first and Google Scholar had more relevant citations but also many that were not appropriate Because there is no way to limit to articles in Google many of the items were consumer oriented Googles recent addition of options inshycluding a date option and Google Scholars recently expanded date limits make the retrieval of current articles easier howevshyer Googles date limits appear to relate to when the item was added rather than to how new it is Many users however rarely use limits in any of these databases and may be unfamiliar with the options

I~NEWS

If you missed MLAs November 18 2009

webcast Cut the Cord Connecting to Our

Mobile Users you can now purchase

the DVD of the program

See wwwmlanetorgeducationdistance_edmobile

for ordering information

~CiIeLEARNNG

So You Want to Use Google continued from page 14

Phrase searching in Google and Google Scholar reduced the retrieval significantly in some cases Pompe disease (a phrase) reshytrieved only 3700 citations in Google Scholar less than 3 of the total when searched without quotes Interestingly in Google a search that uses the option ofpast year produces more citations than the search without any options The search on asthma in pregshynancy produced 26200000 citations when limited to the past year more than double the number of citations when searched without limits In Google and Google Scholar it is never clear exactly how the databases are being searched while PubMed gives searchers a clear indication of the terms being used

The numbers of citations retrieved in Google and Google Scholar continue to be overwhelming in almost any search Googles recent addition of updates from Twitter Facebook and MySpace will add to thislhere is no list of publications for Google Scholar so there is no way to know what is being searched or how large the database is In addition Google and Google Scholar are not limited to health sciences content which may be either an advantage or disadvantage depending on the searchers topic and breadth of interest

Peoples choices of database often depend on what they know best which is the reason that many use Google Google and Google Scholar should be used when appropriate as long as searchers understand their limitations To get precise data in Google or Google Scholar searchers needs to know a variety of search methods-which few searchers do Databases such as CINAHL and PubMed will retrieve a smaller number of more refined results but sometimes Google and particularly Google Scholar may be able to identifY information that is hard to find within the limitations of smaller databases Searching more than one database will provide different results and Google and espeshycially Google Scholar should be considered complementary datashybases to CINAHL and PubMed

References 1 Graber ML Tompkins D Holland] ] Resources medical students use to derive a differential diagnosis Med Teach 2009 ]un31(6)522- 7

2 Black P The dangers of using Google as a diagnostic aid Brit] Nurs 2009 Oct 22-Nov 1118(19)1157

3 Falagas ME Ntziora F Makris GC Malietzis GA Rafailidis PI Do PubMed and Google searches help medical students and young doctors reach the corshyrect diagnosis a pilot study Eur] Intern Med 2009 Dec20(8)788-90

4 Freeman MK Lauderdale SA Kendrach MG WoolshyleyTW Google Scholar versus PubMed in locating prishymary literature to answer drug-related questions Ann Pharmacother 2009 Mar43(3)478-84

5 Lombardi C Griffiths E McLeod B Caviglia A Penagos M Search engine as a diagnostic tool in difshyficult immunological and allergologic cases is Google useful Intern Med] 2009 ]ul39(7)459-64

6 Ripple AS Expert go ogling best practices and adshyvanced strategies for using Google in health sciences libraries Med Ref Serv Q2006 Summer25(2)97-107

7 Shultz M Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar] Med Libr Assoc 2007 Oct95(4)442shy5 DOl 1031631536-5050954442

8 Freeman MK Lauderdale SA Kendrach MG WoolshyleyTW Google Scholar versus PubMed in locating prishymary literature to answer drug-related questions Ann Pharmacother 2009 Mar43(3)478-84

wwwm lanetorg I February 2010

If you missed MLAs November 18 2009

webcast Cut the Cord Connecting to Our

Mobile Users you can now purchase

the DVD of the program

See wwwmlanetorgeducationdistance_edmobile

for ordering information

~CiIeLEARNNG

So You Want to Use Google continued from page 14

Phrase searching in Google and Google Scholar reduced the retrieval significantly in some cases Pompe disease (a phrase) reshytrieved only 3700 citations in Google Scholar less than 3 of the total when searched without quotes Interestingly in Google a search that uses the option ofpast year produces more citations than the search without any options The search on asthma in pregshynancy produced 26200000 citations when limited to the past year more than double the number of citations when searched without limits In Google and Google Scholar it is never clear exactly how the databases are being searched while PubMed gives searchers a clear indication of the terms being used

The numbers of citations retrieved in Google and Google Scholar continue to be overwhelming in almost any search Googles recent addition of updates from Twitter Facebook and MySpace will add to thislhere is no list of publications for Google Scholar so there is no way to know what is being searched or how large the database is In addition Google and Google Scholar are not limited to health sciences content which may be either an advantage or disadvantage depending on the searchers topic and breadth of interest

Peoples choices of database often depend on what they know best which is the reason that many use Google Google and Google Scholar should be used when appropriate as long as searchers understand their limitations To get precise data in Google or Google Scholar searchers needs to know a variety of search methods-which few searchers do Databases such as CINAHL and PubMed will retrieve a smaller number of more refined results but sometimes Google and particularly Google Scholar may be able to identifY information that is hard to find within the limitations of smaller databases Searching more than one database will provide different results and Google and espeshycially Google Scholar should be considered complementary datashybases to CINAHL and PubMed

References 1 Graber ML Tompkins D Holland] ] Resources medical students use to derive a differential diagnosis Med Teach 2009 ]un31(6)522- 7

2 Black P The dangers of using Google as a diagnostic aid Brit] Nurs 2009 Oct 22-Nov 1118(19)1157

3 Falagas ME Ntziora F Makris GC Malietzis GA Rafailidis PI Do PubMed and Google searches help medical students and young doctors reach the corshyrect diagnosis a pilot study Eur] Intern Med 2009 Dec20(8)788-90

4 Freeman MK Lauderdale SA Kendrach MG WoolshyleyTW Google Scholar versus PubMed in locating prishymary literature to answer drug-related questions Ann Pharmacother 2009 Mar43(3)478-84

5 Lombardi C Griffiths E McLeod B Caviglia A Penagos M Search engine as a diagnostic tool in difshyficult immunological and allergologic cases is Google useful Intern Med] 2009 ]ul39(7)459-64

6 Ripple AS Expert go ogling best practices and adshyvanced strategies for using Google in health sciences libraries Med Ref Serv Q2006 Summer25(2)97-107

7 Shultz M Comparing test searches in PubMed and Google Scholar] Med Libr Assoc 2007 Oct95(4)442shy5 DOl 1031631536-5050954442

8 Freeman MK Lauderdale SA Kendrach MG WoolshyleyTW Google Scholar versus PubMed in locating prishymary literature to answer drug-related questions Ann Pharmacother 2009 Mar43(3)478-84

wwwm lanetorg I February 2010