Comparison of bibliographic databases features regarding oral and maxillofacial surgery literature
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v11i12.34807Keywords:
Bibliometrics; Maxillofacial Injuries; Surgery, Oral; Ameloblastoma; Orthognathic surgery.Abstract
This paper aims to provide a bibliometric analysis of the literature on oral and maxillofacial surgery, comparing different databases and discussing the advantages, disadvantages, and specific features of each one. A bibliographical search for oral and maxillofacial surgery literature was conducted on Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, Dimensions, SciELO, LILACS, and Google Scholar. Seven different search strategies were used on each database. VOSViewer and Microsoft Excel were used for tabulation and data visualization. Some statistical tests were performed with a 95% confidence interval, which was considered significant. A table comparing the number of articles obtained during seven different literature searches was created. A correlogram created in RStudio showed the correlation between the number of articles in the different databases evaluated. The functionalities of each database were compared. It is recommended to use more than one database when searching for literature related to surgery. Among the analyzed databases, PubMed stands out for its functionalities, precision, and quantity of available articles.
References
Aksoy S, Aksoy U, Orhan K. An overview of the 35 years of research in the oral radiology: a bibliometric analysis. Oral Radiol. 2022;38(2):183–91.
Aslam-Pervez N, Lubek JE. Most cited publications in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a bibliometric analysis. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Mar 1;22(1):25–37.
Avau B, Remoortel H Van, De Buck E. Translation and validation of PubMed and Embase search filters for identification of systematic reviews, intervention studies, and observational studies in the field of first aid. J Med Libr Assoc. 2021;109(4):599–608.
Basson I, Simar M, Ouangré Z, Sugimoto C, Larivière V. The effect of data sources on the measurement of open access: A comparison of Dimensions and the Web of Science. PLoS One. 2022;17(3):e0265545.
Cantrell A, Booth A, Chambers D. A systematic review case study of urgent and emergency care configuration found citation searching of Web of Science and Google Scholar of similar value. Heal Info Libr J. 2022;Online ahead of print.
Cheng KL, Dodson TB, Egbert MA, Susarla SM. Which Factors Affect Citation Rates in the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Literature? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;75(7):1313–8.
Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22(2):338–42.
Grillo R. Bibliometric trending analysis of complications related to facial non-surgical aesthetic procedures: a retrospective study. Prosthodontics. 2021a;71(3):228–33.
Grillo R. Orthognathic Surgery: A Bibliometric Analysis of the Top 100 Cited Articles. J oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021b;79(11):2339–49.
Grillo R. Analysis of the 100 most cited articles on ameloblastoma. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2022;Online ahead of print.
Grillo R, Lopes T, Teixeira RG. Top 50 covid and oral health articles: A 2021 altmetric analysis. J Oral Biol Craniofacial Res. 2022;12(4):458–64.
Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, De Rijcke S, Rafols I. Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Vol. 520, Nature. 2015. p. 429–31.
Kokol P, Vošner HB. Discrepancies among Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed coverage of funding information in medical journal articles. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(1):81–6.
Martín-Martín A, Thelwall M, Orduna-Malea E, López-Cózar E. Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics. 2021;126(1):871–906.
Mondal H, Mondal S, Mondal S. How to choose title and keywords for manuscript according to medical subject headings. Indian J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018;5(3):141.
Morshed T, Hayden S. Google Versus PubMed: Comparison of Google and PubMed’s Search Tools for Answering Clinical Questions in the Emergency Department. Ann Emerg Med. 2020;75(3):408–15.
Nourbakhsh E, Nugent R, Wang H, Cevik C, Nugent K. Medical literature searches: a comparison of PubMed and Google Scholar. Heal Inf Libr J. 2012;29(3):214–22.
Powell K. Searching by grant number: comparison of funding acknowledgments in NIH RePORTER, PubMed, and Web of Science. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019;107(2):172–8.
Sauvayre R. Types of Errors Hiding in Google Scholar Data. J Med Internet Res. 2022;24(5):e28354.
Villatte G, Marcheix P, Antoni M, Devos P, Descamps S, Boisgard S, et al. Do bibliometric findings differ between Medline, Google Scholar and Web of Science? Bibliometry of publications after oral presentation to the 2013 and 2014 French Society of Arthroscopy (SFA) Congresses. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2020;106(8):1469–73.
Xia J, Wright J, Adams CE. Five large Chinese biomedical bibliographic databases: accessibility and coverage. Heal Info Libr J. 2008;25(1):55–61.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Mariana Brozoski; Ricardo Grillo; Yuri Slusarenko da Silva; Agnelo Lucamba; Maria da Graça Naclério-Homem
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
