Skip to Main Content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.

The Hits and Misses of Resources in Medicine and Health Sciences: Hits & Misses

While Google is a great tool for finding restaurants and for planning your vacation, you might think twice before you treat patients with information from Google. Here's a tip sheet that shows the pros and cons of different resources.

Resource Comparison

Resource Pros Cons
  • Fast
  • Easy
  • Free
  • Good for finding information on topics about which there may not be many other articles
  • No two searches produce the same results
  • Can't sort results by date to see newest pages first
  • Google algorithm is a secret -- we don't know how pages are ranked
  • Web page authors can manipulate Google algorithm so that their pages are ranked higher
  • Ads and sponsored pages show up in results
  • Results mix trustworthy and biased content

  • Fast
  • Easy
  • Free
  • Shows times cited, citing papers
  • Advanced options available for searching by subject, authors or journals
  • Good for finding articles about specific instruments or questionnaires
  • No way to know what journals and articles are included
  • Doesn't include articles without abstracts
  • May not include the newest articles from PubMed
  • Can't sort results by date
  • No way to search using subject headings, clinical queries, study type or other limits

  • Fast
  • Easy
  • Free
  • Good source for background information when you don't know anything about a topic
  • Covers the "long tail"
  • Becoming less biased: seeks more references, hot topics, works to verify author credentials
  • The ability for anyone to edit most topics means that errors can get corrected quickly
  • The author of an entry is not easily determined
  • Generally not well referenced
  • Not peer reviewed
  • Articles not stable: content can change on an hourly basis
  • Hard to tell if an entry is evidence-based


  • Free
  • Connects to the full-text of original research easily
  • Sophisticated tools for searching, i.e., automatic mapping to subject headings, limits, clinical queries, filter tabs
  • Customization features allow you to save searches and citations, set filters, etc.
  • Explicitly states what journals are included
  • Multiple ways to do things can make it easy to find a way that works for you
  • Requires training for most efficient and effective use
  • Platform can be a bit unstable sometimes
  • Multiple ways to do things can make it complicated to remember how to do things
Footer for USD LibGuide v2.0