ArticleHeadache2017
Using Search Engines to Investigate Shared Migraine Experiences.
Article in Headache, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- "Dr. Google, I am in Pain"-Global Internet Searches Associated with Pain: A Retrospective Analysis of Google Trends Data.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Lifestyle Disease Surveillance Using Population Search Behavior: Feasibility Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate migraine patterns in the United States using Google search data and utilize this information to better understand societal-level trends. Additionally, we aimed to evaluate time-series relationships between migraines and social factors.
backgroundExtensive research has been done on clinical factors associated with migraines, yet population-level social factors have not been widely explored. Migraine internet search data may provide insight into migraine trends beyond information that can be gleaned from other sources.
methodsIn this longitudinal analysis of open access data, we performed a time-series analysis in which about 12 years of Google Trends data (January 1, 2004 to August 15, 2016) were assessed. Data points were captured at a daily level and Google's 0-100 adjusted scale was used as the primary outcome to enable the comparison of relative popularity in the migraine search term. We hypothesized that the volume of relative migraine Google searches would be affected by societal aspects such as day of the week, holidays, and novel social events.
resultsSeveral recurrent social factors that drive migraine searches were identified. Of these, day of the week had the most significant impact on the volume of Google migraine searches. On average, Mondays accumulated 13.31 higher relative search volume than Fridays (95% CI: 11.12-15.51, P ≤ .001). Surprisingly, holidays were associated with lower relative migraine search volumes. Christmas Day had 13.84 lower relative search volumes (95% CI: 6.26-21.43, P ≤ .001) and Thanks giving had 20.18 lower relative search volumes (95% CI: 12.55-27.82, P ≤ .001) than days that were not holidays. Certain novel social events and extreme weather also appear to be associated with relative migraine Google search volume.
conclusionsSocial factors play a crucial role in explaining population level migraine patterns, and thus, warrant further exploration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.