Objective: To assess the accuracy of PubMed-based author lists of publications and use of author identifiers to address author name ambiguity. Methods: In this Swiss study conducted in 2019, 300 hospital-based senior physicians were asked to generate a list of their publications in PubMed and complete a questionnaire (type of query used, number of errors in their list of publications, knowledge and use of ORCID and ResearcherID). Results: 156 physicians (52%) agreed to participate, 145 of whom published at least one article (mean number of publications: 60 (SD 73)). Only 17% used the advanced search option. On average, there were 5 articles in the lists that were not co-authored by participants (advanced search: 1.0 (SD 2.6) vs. 5.9 (SD 13.9), p value 0.02) and 3 articles co-authored by participants that did not appear in the lists (advanced search: 1.5 (SD 2.0) vs. 3.6 (SD 8.4), p-value 0.05). Although 82% were aware of ORCID, only 16% added all their articles (39% and 6% respectively for ResearcherID). Conclusions: When used by senior physicians, the advanced search in PubMed is accurate for retrieving authors’ publications. Author identifiers are only used by a minority of physicians and are therefore not recommended in this context, as they would lead to inaccurate results.

目的：评估基于PubMed的出版物作者列表的准确性，以及使用作者标识符解决作者姓名含糊的问题。方法：在2019年进行的这项瑞士研究中，要求300名医院高级医师在PubMed中生成其出版物清单并填写调查表（使用的查询类型，其出版物清单中的错误数量，知识的使用和使用情况）。ORCID和ResearcherID）。结果：156位医师（52％）同意参加，其中145位发表了至少一篇文章（平均发表数量：60（SD 73））。只有17％的人使用了高级搜索选项。平均而言，列表中有5篇文章不是由参与者共同撰写的（高级搜索：1.0（SD 2.6）vs. 5.9（SD 13.9），p值0.02），还有3篇不是由参与者共同撰写的文章出现在列表中（高级搜索：1.5（SD 2.0）vs. 3.6（SD 8.4），p值0.05）。尽管82％的人知道ORCID，但只有16％的人添加了所有文章（ResearcherID分别为39％和6％）。结论：当由高级医师使用时，PubMed中的高级搜索对于检索作者出版物是准确的。作者标识符仅由少数医师使用，因此在此情况下不推荐使用，因为它们会导致结果不准确。