Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28410185›Full record

ArticleJMIR cancer2016

"Googling" for Cancer: An Infodemiological Assessment of Online Search Interests in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Forough Foroughi, Alfred K-Y Lam, Megan S C Lim, Nassim Saremi, Alireza Ahmadvand

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Quality of DCIS information on the internet: a content analysis.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2019
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Forough ForoughiDepartment of Pathology, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Islamic Republic Of Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5253-6590
Alfred K-Y LamCancer Molecular Pathology, School of Medicine and Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2771-564X
Megan S C LimCentre for Population Health, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3136-6761
Nassim SaremiCancer Molecular Pathology, School of Medicine and Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1853-1497
Alireza AhmadvandSchool of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5568-8787

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe infodemiological analysis of queries from search engines to shed light on the status of various noncommunicable diseases has gained increasing popularity in recent years.

objectiveThe aim of the study was to determine the international perspective on the distribution of information seeking in Google regarding "cancer" in major English-speaking countries.

methodsWe used Google Trends service to assess people's interest in searching about "Cancer" classified as "Disease," from January 2004 to December 2015 in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Then, we evaluated top cities and their relative search volumes (SVs) and country-specific "Top searches" and "Rising searches." We also evaluated the cross-country correlations of SVs for cancer, as well as rank correlations of SVs from 2010 to 2014 with the incidence of cancer in 2012 in the abovementioned countries.

resultsFrom 2004 to 2015, the United States (relative SV [from 100]: 63), Canada (62), and Australia (61) were the top countries searching for cancer in Google, followed by New Zealand (54) and the United Kingdom (48). There was a consistent seasonality pattern in searching for cancer in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Baltimore (United States), St John's (Canada), Sydney (Australia), Otaika (New Zealand), and Saint Albans (United Kingdom) had the highest search interest in their corresponding countries. "Breast cancer" was the cancer entity that consistently appeared high in the list of top searches in all 5 countries. The "Rising searches" were "pancreatic cancer" in Canada and "ovarian cancer" in New Zealand. Cross-correlation of SVs was strong between the United States, Canada, and Australia (>.70, P<.01).

conclusionsCancer maintained its popularity as a search term for people in the United States, Canada, and Australia, comparably higher than New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The increased interest in searching for keywords related to cancer shows the possible effectiveness of awareness campaigns in increasing societal demand for health information on the Web, to be met in community-wide communication or awareness interventions.

Indexed as

cancerconsumer health informationepidemiologygeographic mappingGoogle TrendsinfodemiologyInternetneoplasms

Identifiers

PMID28410185
PMCPMC5369660

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.