Comment from PubMed Commons
Chris Hafner-Eaton | May 27 2014 15:20 ESTThis study should be viewed as one "data pull" of 29 systematic reviews. In order to support the conclusions, the study must be replicated many times...
Chris Hafner-Eaton | May 27 2014 15:20 ESTThis study should be viewed as one "data pull" of 29 systematic reviews. In order to support the conclusions, the study must be replicated many times...
M Felix Freshwater | Mar 31 2014 10:38 ESTThe AMSTAR standard http://amstar.ca/Amstar_Checklist.php is 2 electronic sources. According to the Cochrane Handbook http://handbook...
Stephen E. O. Ogbonmwan | Apr 01 2014 10:47 ESTIt is scholarly wise to use more than one data base in searching for articles for review publications...
Gaétan Kerdelhué | Nov 15 2013 04:12 ESTTwo later studies confirmed a high recall of Google Scholar but argued it could not be used in realistic settings for systematic reviews...
Francesc Roig | May 21 2014 10:32 ESTFrom my point of view, according to the methodology of the study of Gehanno et col, and according to the results presented, they cannot affirm that "If the…
Farhad Shokraneh | Mar 28 2014 17:20 ESTI think the conclusion of the paper is not supported by the data. This study just shows that "If you KNOW that a paper ALREADY exist, you can find it in Google…
Wichor Bramer | Dec 27 2013 18:39 ESTMore recently another article was published that revisited the conclusions from Gehanno: Bramer WM, 2013...