Abstract
Rigorous evidence identification is essential for systematic reviews and meta- analyses (evidence syntheses) because the sample selection of relevant studies determines a review's outcome, validity, and explanatory power. Yet, the sea- rch systems allowing access to this evidence provide varying levels of precision, recall, and reproducibility and also demand different levels of effort. To date, it remains unclear which search systems are most appropriate for evidence syn- thesis and why. Advice on which search engines and bibliographic databases to choose for systematic searches is limited and lacking systematic, empirical performance assessments. This study investigates and compares the systematic search qualities of 28 widely used academic search systems, including Google Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science. A novel, query-based method tests how well users are able to interact and retrieve records with each system. The study is the first to show the extent to which search systems can effectively and effi- ciently perform (Boolean) searches with regards to precision, recall, and repro- ducibility. We found substantial differences in the performance of search systems, meaning that their usability in systematic searches varies. Indeed, only half of the search systems analyzed and only a few Open Access databases can be recommended for evidence syntheses without adding substantial caveats. Particularly, our findings demonstrate why Google Scholar is inappro- priate as principal search system. We call for database owners to recognize the requirements of evidence synthesis and for academic journals to reassess qual- ity requirements for systematic reviews. Our findings aim to support researchers in conducting better searches for better evidence synthesis.