Evidence-Based Practice: Selecting Scholarly Databases
This paper examines best practices for conducting literature reviews within the evidence-based practice (EBP) process, with a focus on selecting appropriate scholarly databases and search platforms. Drawing on recent research, it compares tools such as PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, ProQuest, and Google Scholar, evaluating their strengths and limitations for systematic query retrieval. The paper also addresses ethical considerations around database access and advocates for a diversified, professionally rigorous approach to literature searching. Ultimately, it recommends leveraging academic medical center research resources as the primary access point for hospital-based EBP teams.
- Literature Review Databases in the EBP Process: Comparing scholarly databases versus Google Scholar for EBP
- Open Access Systems and Search Methodology: Open-access tools and reporting search methodology
- Selecting the Right Database for Your Research Needs: Choosing optimal databases through a diversified approach
- Ethical Considerations in Research Access: Why sharing login credentials is professionally inappropriate
- Utilizing Hospital Consortium Research Resources: Leveraging academic medical center for EBP literature access
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Balances acknowledgment of Google Scholar's scope with a data-driven critique of its query failure rate, demonstrating nuanced evaluation rather than blanket dismissal.
- Integrates specific citations with practical, actionable recommendations, making the argument both evidence-grounded and professionally applicable.
- Addresses an ethical dimension (sharing login credentials) that many similar papers overlook, rounding out the discussion beyond purely technical concerns.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper models comparative source evaluation — a core EBP skill. Rather than simply listing databases, it uses cited empirical findings (Gusenbauer & Haddaway, 2020; Klopfenstein & Dampier, 2021) to assess platform quality, then translates those findings into concrete guidance. This technique shows readers how to appraise research tools with the same critical lens used to appraise research evidence.
Structure breakdown
The paper moves logically from broad (which databases to use and why) to specific (open-access options and methodology reporting) to practical (diversifying approaches, avoiding ethical pitfalls, and leveraging institutional resources). Each paragraph advances a distinct point while building toward the final recommendation to use the hospital consortium's academic medical center as the team's primary EBP resource.
Literature Review Databases in the EBP Process
When conducting a literature review in the evidence-based practice (EBP) process, the best approach is to consult scholarly databases. Keyword searches can be conducted using databases such as ProQuest, PubMed, EbscoHost, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and several others. Conducting research using Google Scholar may be easy and free, but as Gusenbauer and Haddaway (2020) show, it is not the most effective way to conduct keyword searches or research in a scholarly manner. That said, Gusenbauer (2019) does acknowledge that Google Scholar is by far the most comprehensive collection of scholarly records, with nearly 400 million files on record, making it "the most comprehensive academic search engine" (p. 177). For that reason, it is understandable that researchers and students might feel compelled to turn to Google Scholar as a search engine of choice.
What remains to be considered, however, is that the size of a collection does not necessarily indicate the quality of its search system. Indeed, Google Scholar has been found to fail query tests — meaning that even when a person enters keywords that should retrieve relevant sources, Google does not necessarily return those sources (Gusenbauer & Haddaway, 2020).
Open Access Systems and Search Methodology
Open access search systems do exist, and Gusenbauer and Haddaway (2020) recommend ClinicalTrials.gov as it "passed all tests relating to necessary criteria" (p. 210). Nonetheless, whatever method one chooses to use must be stated in the report's methodology, because the choice will have an impact on the quality of the search conducted. SpringerLink and Wiley are journal platforms that may also be used, but again, this should be documented in the written section of the report that describes how literature was obtained for the review.
References
Gusenbauer, M. (2019). Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases. Scientometrics, 118(1), 177–214.
Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(2), 181–217.
Klopfenstein, D. V., & Dampier, W. (2021). Commentary to Gusenbauer and Haddaway 2020: Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar and PubMed. Research Synthesis Methods, 12(2), 126–135.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.